News
[09/04]
Man accused of making license plate 'disappear'
[09/04]
Alleged thief leaves giveaway clue - his signature
[09/04]
Neb. man sues prosecutor to get his leg back
[09/03]
Cross-dressing thief leaves fake breast behind
[09/03]
Jaywalker allegedly moons motorists after ticket
More...
Articles
Defendants' Rights During a Trial: The Bill of Rights
There are two fundamental aspects of the U.S. criminal justice system: The presumption that the defendant is innocent, and the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But criminal defendants have other rights, too, including the rights to:
More...
Searches & Seizures: The Limitations of the Police
Although people in the United States are entitled to privacy and freedom from government intrusion, there is a limit to that privacy. State or federal police officers are allowed, where justified, to search your premises, car, or other property in order to look for and take illegal items, stolen goods or evidence of a crime. What rules must the police follow when engaging in these searches and seizures? What can they do in upholding the laws, and what can't they do?
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[09/05]
US v. Bendtzen
In a case challenging an enhanced sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual, sentence is affirmed where use of a fake bomb during a bank robbery constitutes "a dangerous weapon. . .otherwise used" and thus a four level sentence increase under U.S.S.G. section 2B3.1(b)(2)(D) and consideration of defendant's past crimes was not unreasonable in calculating a category VI criminal history.
[09/05]
US v. Nader
In prosections related to a prostitution ring, convictions for violations of the Travel Act are affirmed where: 1) the convictions were based on telephone calls within a single state; and 2) the telephone is a facility in interstate commerce even when used for in-state calling.
[09/05]
US v. Medina-Beltran
In an immigration case, an enhanced sentence is affirmed where: 1) the government's decision not to move for reduced sentencing was not arbitrary; and 2) separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches is not violated by section 401(g) of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, which requires the government to make a motion in order for a defendant to receive a reduced sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
[09/05]
US v. Moore
Sentences for unrelated crack cocaine offenses are affirmed where: 1) the courts properly determined that they lacked authority under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) to grant the requested sentence reductions in these cases; 2) when a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant's base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence; and 3) although Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines would reduce the base offense levels applicable to the defendants, it would not affect their guideline ranges because they were sentenced as career offenders under U.S.S.G. section 4B1.1.
[09/05]
US v. Schwartz
Convictions for offenses committed in carrying out a fraudulent scheme to sell high-yield promissory notes issued by defendants' companies to individual investors, are affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the district court committed a Bruton violation when it permitted the prosecutor to introduce into evidence an out-of-court statement by codefendant that implicated him in most, if not all, of the charged offenses; and 2) the admission of codefendant's affidavit, and the indispensable role it played in the prosecutor's closing argument to the jury, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
More...
|
