Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
United States of America v. Jenna Ryan
Date: 01-16-2021
Case Number:
Judge:
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC
Defendant's Attorney:
Washington, D.C. Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer to Help You.
Washington, D.C. Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer to Help You.
MoreLaw Marketing
Cost Effective Internet Marketing for Legal Professionals
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Ryan, a Dallas, realtor, asked Trump to pardon her because she thought that she was acting at his direction.
"I thought I was following my president. I thought I was following what we were called to do. He asked us to fly there. So I was doing was he asked us to do.â€
The charges set forth in the Indictment are merely accusations and do not constitute proof of guilt. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty.
About This Case
What was the outcome of United States of America v. Jenna Ryan?
The outcome was: The charges set forth in the Indictment are merely accusations and do not constitute proof of guilt. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Which court heard United States of America v. Jenna Ryan?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of Columbia, DC.
Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Jenna Ryan?
Plaintiff's attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC. Defendant's attorney: Washington, D.C. Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory OR Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer to Help You. MoreLaw Marketing Cost Effective Internet Marketing for Legal Professionals Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800.
When was United States of America v. Jenna Ryan decided?
This case was decided on January 16, 2021.