This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Supreme Court recently agreed to consider a case that is expected to define the scope of federal identity theft law. The appeals court found that the “plain meaning” of the word “use” is “to employ for the accomplishment of some purpose” or “ ‘to avail oneself of,” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1776 (10th ed. Facts of the Case.
At issue was the federal “felon-in-possession” law—18 U.S.C. § The federal law makes it “unlawful for any person. When his wife recently bought him a deer-hunting rifle, he learned that he was barred under federal law. It also is an appeal that would be made by the United States over the invalidation of a federal statute.
Former Georgia police sergeant Nathan Van Buren used his patrol-car computer to access a law enforcement database to retrieve information about a particular license plate number in exchange for money. The post SCOTUS Adopts Narrow Interpretation of Computer Fraud Act appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
In covering the motions hearing last week in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, I noted a surprising comment from Judge Bruce Schroeder that he had “spent hours” with the Wisconsin gun law and could not state with certainty what it means in this case. It is also hard to instruct a jury on an ambiguous statute.
Newsom cited the kidnapping statute but apparently failed to read it or the underlying cases. First, let’s look at the law. Moreover, it is not clear how transporting migrants who entered the country illegally to another state is a violation of law. They are then left to their own devices and destinations.
Nessel then restarted the prosecutions anew but ignored statutes that clearly do not allow the use of a single judge to issue indictments. It is not clear if future prosecutions might run afoul of the six year statute of limitations for most crimes. juror) to charge them.”
Hendrix , a case that exemplifies the Gordian knot that is the federal habeas corpus statute. Under Section 2255(h), a prisoner can bring a second or successive petition based only on facts that clearly demonstrate actual innocence or a new rule of constitutionallaw that the Supreme Court has made retroactive.
Facts of the Case The federal statute at issue, Title 18 U.S.C. Under Section 924(c)(3)(A), a crime of violence is defined as a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another. 924(c)(3)(A). In support of its decision, the Court cited United States v.
922(g) prohibits people with felony convictions from possessing a firearm. United States that to be convicted under the felon-in-possession statute, the government has to prove not only that the defendant knowingly possessed a gun, but that he knew he was prohibited from doing so. But the problem is the law, not the car.
922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Under the Government’s reading, Congress could remove “unordinary” or “irresponsible” or “non-law abiding” people—however expediently defined—from the scope of the Second Amendment. Heller, 554 U.S.
I also raised the problem of an investigation that remained ongoing for years as the statute of limitations expired on major potential crimes. Two IRS whistleblowers recently confirmed that the expiration of potential tax felony crimes was raised with Weiss and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Once again, the media is silent on this clearly abusive use of the criminal code target members of the opposing party in their raising objections under state law. While it was gleefully presented by papers like the Washington Post, it ignored case law that rejected precisely this type of limitless definition of the offense.
From bribery statutes to constitutional provisions, legal experts routinely and unfailingly conclude that Trump or his family can be prosecuted or impeached for an endless array of misdeeds. One of the longest standing debates in constitutionallaw is dismissed as ill-informed by some of the same experts.
In past columns, we have discussed how Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe seems intent upon running through the entire criminal code in declaring clear evidence of every federal crime by former President Donald Trump and/or his family. You don’t have to go to law school to know that there’s something seriously criminal about that.
Here is the column: In both the law and psychology, the concept of “willful blindness” is a long-recognized pattern of human conduct. The Justice Department then attempted an absurd sweetheart deal to close off the case without felony charges or jail time. First, there are the tax violations.
Through various contortions, Bragg converted a dead misdemeanor case into 34 felonies in an unprecedented prosecution. New Yorkers and the media insisted that such selective prosecution was in defense of the “rule of law.” That is not how the law is seen from 9th Avenue. It all comes down to the legal map. and Maurice C.
While the Justice Department allowed the statutes of limitations to run on various felonies, Hunter would be faced with a new set of charges with years for criminal charges to be brought by prosecutors. That may now change. If Hunter lies to congressional investigators, he can be charged with a federal crime. That will now change.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content