Generally, relevant evidence is admissible at trial. Evidence is relevant—in civil and criminal cases alike—if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence,” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. See also Fed. R. Evid. 1101(a)-(b). Under Seventh Circuit precedent, evidence need not tend to disprove every claim within an action to satisfy Rule 401. But that appears to be precisely what the Eleventh Circuit’s decision below requires, particularly where a jury is presented with alternative theories of a crime.

The petitioner therefore asks whether evidence can satisfy Rule 401’s relevance standard in criminal jury trials even if the evidence would not tend to disprove every alternative theory of guilt?

1

1. Whether a federal court may apply judicial estoppel to dismiss a civil action when the debtor reopened the bankruptcy case, amended the schedules with court approval, the trustee was appointed, and the bankruptcy was fully administered and closed before the civil dismissal.
2. Whether the Due Process Clause permits a district court to Sua Sponte reverse its prior ruling rejecting judicial estoppel, without notice or an opportunity to be heard, based solely on a decision from a different case involving different claims.
3. Whether judicial estoppel may be imposed without findings of intentional concealment, bad faith, or prejudice, contrary to New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001), and this Court’s bankruptcy-fresh-start jurisprudence.
4. Whether punishing a debtor for correcting a bankruptcy disclosure undermines the Bankruptcy Code’s “fresh start” policy.

i.

Whether, in disability discrimination and related employment discrimination cases, a court of appeals may affirm summary judgment by resolving disputed issues of fact and credibility in the employer’s favor based on judge-made frameworks such as McDonnell Douglas, rather than applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving employee.

LIST OF PARTIES Petitioner: Jay Pemberton. Respondent: Bell’s Brewery, Inc. RELATED PROCEEDINGS Jay Pemberton v. Bell’s Brewery, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00739 (W.D. Mich.) Jay Pemberton v. Bell’s Brewery, Inc., No. 24-1518 (6th Cir.)