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
One of the three violent felonies the government alleged as a predicate to the ACCA charge was for reckless aggravated assault under Tennessee law. The Supreme Court reversed that judgment and remanded the case. .” Petitioner Charles Borden Jr.
The opinion is a victory for physicians prescribing innovative treatments that they believe serve legitimate medical purposes, and it should assuage concerns about a ruling that could have chilled more doctors from prescribing needed pain treatments. The case, Ruan v. Referencing a “a longstanding presumption, traceable.
The case came to the court after Charles Borden Jr. pleaded guilty to violating a federal law barring people convicted of a felony from possessing a firearm. The ACCA, in Borden’s view, required a higher culpable state of mind, or mensrea , than recklessness. The district courtruled for the government and the U.S.
21-5261, 597 U.S. _ (2022), the Supreme Courtruled that the government must prove — beyond a reasonable doubt — that a prescriber knew or intended that a prescription was not lawful in order to subject that prescriber to criminal penalties under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). United States, No.
Experts like Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe have previously declared Trump’s felonies were shown “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt, and the crimes are obvious.” That is a far cry from evidence showing mensrea — “guilty mind.” At 4:17 p.m., In Brandenburg v.
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.
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