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
The US Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that “reckless” crimes qualify as violent felonies for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Supreme Court reversed that judgment and remanded the case. ” Petitioner Charles Borden Jr.
Judge White wrote the unanimous opinion for the Court, which was joined by Judge Moore and Judge Bush. The Court held that an Ohio aggravated-robbery offense, R.C. A)(1), does not qualify as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (commonly referred to as “ACCA”). A)(1) did qualify as a violent felony under ACCA.
United States , the Supreme Court analyzed the Armed Career Criminal Act ’s force clause or elements clause. Under the ACCA, a person who has three violent felony convictions and is then convicted of possessing a firearm faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years. The case came to the court after Charles Borden Jr.
Now, after an unfavorable HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) advisory opinion and two defeats in court, Pfizer has appealed the Second Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. The Second Circuit’s Interpretation of the AKS and its MensRea Element.
That court granted summary judgment to the government on the APA claim and rejected Pfizer’s narrower reading of the AKS, which would require an element of “corrupt” intent to impose AKS liability. Similarly, the Court drew on the plain meaning of “willfully” to reject Pfizer’s argument that the term suggests “an element of corruption.”
An interesting historical sidenote is that if one looks at the official Park decision from the Supreme Court, one will find our own Paul Hyman who was one co-author of the amicus curiae briefs. Therefore, as a matter of proof, DOJ can obtain a misdemeanor conviction even when a jury acquits on a felony.
Collins , a 4-3-1-2 Supreme Court today holds the evidence did not support a second-degree murder conviction of a mother who didn’t protect her two-month old son from being murdered by the baby’s father. The Chief Justice has only recently expressed differences with a court majority in any case. In People v.
In a forthcoming (May 2022) book, Criminology on Trump, I have marshalled the mensrea type of evidence that I hope prosecutors and the Department of Justice will consider in charging Trump and his associates with a variety of white-collar crimes. Several weeks after losing the 2020 election, on Jan.6, Should the U.S.
It was due to the paucity of direct evidence of a crime that would hold up in court. LEXIS 1033 *, 2021 WL 633384, the court noted: Attempted murder requires a finding of specific intent to kill such that implied malice is insufficient to support a conviction for that offense. See People v. Gillespie, 2022 Cal. Indeed, in People v.
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.
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