filename
stringclasses 3
values | text
stringlengths 9
5k
|
|---|---|
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | Bribery Grading
Bribery is typically graded as a felony (N.Y. Penal Law § 200.00, 2011) with enhancements for bribery that is
carried out with a larger sum of money (N.Y. Penal Law § 200.03, 2011) or bribery that results in someone’s
prosecution or incarceration for a felony (N.Y. Penal Law § 200.04, 2011). When a state legislator (Cal. Penal
Code § 88, 2011) or a public official (Cal. Penal Code § 74, 2011) commits bribery, it is typical to disqualify that
individual from his or her office for life, in addition to any other sentence.
Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of justice takes many forms and is a classic example of an offense against the administration of
justice. States and the federal government exercise broad latitude in enacting statutes that criminalize interference
with any aspect of law enforcement procedure or the prosecution and conviction of criminal offenders. Some
typical examples of obstruction of justice are as follows: giving false identification to a law enforcement officer
(720 ILCS § 5/31-4.5, 2011), impersonating a law enforcement officer (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 843.08, 2011), refusing to
aid a law enforcement officer when requested (N.Y. Penal Law § 295.10, 2011), giving false evidence (720 ILCS
§ 5/31-4, 2011), hiding or concealing oneself and refusing to give evidence (720 ILCS § 5/31-4, 2011), tampering
with evidence (Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.295, 2011), and tampering with a witness (18 U.S.C. § 1512, 2011) or juror
(Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2807, 2011). All these acts are generally supported by specific intent or purposely or
general intent or knowingly. The Model Penal Code prohibits threatening unlawful harm to any person or public
servant with purpose to influence his decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion
(Model Penal Code § 240.2). Obstruction of justice offenses are most often graded as a misdemeanor or felony,
depending on the offense.
Example of Obstruction of Justice
Barry Bonds, a baseball player and record-breaking home run hitter for the San Francisco Giants, was found
guilty by a federal jury for obstruction of justice, based on his refusal to answer a question during a grand jury
investigation of his steroid use (Macur, J., 2011). Bonds was also charged with three counts of perjury, but the
jury could not agree to convict, resulting in a mistrial on all three counts (Ortiz, J. L., 2011). The perjury charges
stemmed from Bonds’s claim while testifying under oath that he never knowingly used steroids, never knowingly
used human growth hormones, and was never injected with a substance by anyone other than his trainer. The
obstruction of justice conviction resulted from Bonds’s evasive answer to the question of whether his personal
trainer had ever injected him with steroids (Macur, J., 2011). Instead of answering yes or no to this question,
Bonds began reminiscing about his friendship with the trainer, who went to prison four times in five years for also
refusing to testify in the investigation (Macur, J., 2011). The perjury charges support the obstruction of justice
charge, so the defense asked for a court dismissal of the obstruction of justice conviction in order to clear the way
for an appeal (Ortiz, J. L., 2011). Note that Bonds’s obstruction of justice charge of evading the question and
refusing to give evidence appears easier to prove than the perjury charges, which have a daunting criminal intent
requirement, as discussed in Section 13 “Perjury Criminal Intent”.
13.3 Perjury, Bribery, and Obstruction of Justice 495 |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | The Barry Bonds Verdict Video
Associated Press: Bonds Guilty of Obstruction, Jury Hung on Others
The verdict in the federal Barry Bonds case is explained in this video:
" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwcxpgJA6o4" class="replaced-iframe" onclick="return
replaceIframe(this)" data-url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwcxpgJA6o4">(click to see video)
Additional Crimes against the Government
Additional crimes against the government that impair the orderly administration of justice are contempt (N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 5A-11, et seq., 2011), resisting arrest (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5104, 2011), and escape (Tex. Penal
Code § 38.06, 2011). Review the statutes in the endnotes for common elements and grading of these offenses.
Figure 13.9 Diagram of Perjury, Bribery, and Obstruction of Justice
496 Criminal Law |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | Key Takeaways
•
Most jurisdictions define perjury as a false material statement (criminal act), made with specific intent or
purposely to deceive, or the general intent or knowingly that the statement was false, in a judicial or official
proceeding, or in a certified writing (attendant circumstance), under oath (attendant circumstance).
•
The issues commonly encountered in any perjury prosecution are proving the validity of the oath, the
defendant’s criminal intent, or the materiality of the false statement, and any requirement of corroborative
evidence.
13.3 Perjury, Bribery, and Obstruction of Justice 497 |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | •
Many jurisdictions provide a defense to perjury if the defendant retracts his or her false statement in the
course of the same proceeding in which it was made before it becomes manifest that the falsification will be
exposed.
•
Perjury by inconsistent statements is when the defendant makes statements that are inconsistent (criminal
act), in a judicial proceeding (attendant circumstance), after taking a validly administered oath (attendant
circumstance). The prosecution does not need to prove which statement is false for this offense. Subornation
of perjury is procuring another to commit perjury (criminal act), with specific intent or purposely, or general
intent or knowingly, and factually and legally causing the resulting harm that perjury is actually committed.
•
Perjury is generally graded as a felony, with a potential sentencing enhancement for committing perjury
that causes another to be sentenced to prison or the death penalty. Subornation of perjury is also graded as a
felony.
•
Many criminal statutes define bribery as conferring, offering, agreeing to confer, or soliciting, accepting,
or agreeing to accept, any benefit upon a public official (criminal act) with the specific intent or purposely,
or the general intent or knowingly to form an agreement or understanding that the public official’s decision
making will be influenced by the benefit. The crime of bribery is often extended to apply to persons other
than public officials, such as employees, agents, or fiduciaries for the purpose of influencing the bribed
individual’s on-the-job conduct, which is called commercial bribery. Bribery can also cover members of a
state legislature, any judicial officer, juror, referee, umpire, or witness. The primary issue in a bribery
prosecution is proving the defendant’s criminal intent to enter into an agreement that influences the bribed
individual’s decision making. Bribery is typically graded as a felony, with enhancements for a bribe that is a
large sum of money or bribery that results in incarceration for a felony, along with a disqualification from
office.
•
Some typical examples of obstruction of justice are as follows: giving false identification to a law
enforcement officer, impersonating a law enforcement officer, refusing to aid a law enforcement officer
when requested, giving false evidence, hiding or concealing oneself and refusing to give evidence,
tampering with evidence, and tampering with a witness or juror. All these acts are generally supported by
specific intent or purposely, or general intent or knowingly. Obstruction of justice is graded anywhere from
a misdemeanor to a felony, depending on the offense.
Exercises
Answer the following questions. Check your answers using the answer key at the end of the chapter.
1.
Susannah, a Hollywood movie star, is a witness in a civil personal injury case. Susannah saw a car
accident and is subpoenaed to testify that the defendant was at fault. After the court commissioner
administers an oath to tell the truth, Susannah takes the witness stand. She knows the case will generate
significant publicity, so Susannah shaves ten years off of her age when asked routine background questions
by the prosecutor. If Susannah is thereafter caught in this lie and prosecuted for perjury, what will be the
primary issue in her perjury prosecution? How will this issue be resolved?
2.
Read State v. Carr, 172 Conn. 458 (1977). In this case, the defendant was convicted of bribery when he
paid an undercover detective to refrain from investigating narcotics crimes in the area. The defendant
appealed, claiming the jury should have been instructed on the lesser included offense of offering gifts to
state police officers. Did the Supreme Court of Connecticut uphold the defendant’s bribery conviction? Why
or why not? The case is available at this link: http://scholar.google.com/
scholar_case?case=14705028387089517508&q= %22State+v.+Carr%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5.
3.
Read People v. Silverberg, 771 N.Y.S. 2d 274 (2003). In this case, the defendant was convicted of witness
tampering for a single telephone call he made to an attorney that implied he would send letters to a
498 Criminal Law |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | grievance committee if the attorney did not drop charges against him. Did the Supreme Court of New York
uphold the defendant’s conviction? Why or why not? The case is available at this link:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3089258849772766127&q=
%22witness+tampering%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,33&as_ylo=2003.
Law and Ethics
Should Former President Clinton Have Been Criminally Prosecuted for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice?
On May 6, 1994, Paula Jones filed a civil lawsuit for sexual harassment against then-president Bill Clinton. The US
Supreme Court ruled that the president was not immune to this lawsuit, allowing it to continue (Clinton v. Jones, 2011).
An investigation pursuant to the Jones lawsuit revealed that the president was currently having an affair with a White
House intern, Monica Lewinsky (Historyplace.com website, 2011). During a Jones lawsuit deposition, the president
stated under oath that he did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky pursuant to the definition of sexual relations
given by the questioning attorneys (Deposition excerpts, 2011). He also stated that he could not recall ever being alone
with Lewinsky at the White House (Deposition excerpts, 2011). After the deposition, he was involved in an effort to get
Ms. Lewinsky a federal job outside Washington, DC (Historyplace.com, 2011). Although the Jones lawsuit was
dismissed, the president was evasive when asked questions regarding the Lewinsky affair during a grand jury
investigation instigated by Prosecutor and former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr. The evening of the grand jury
investigation, the president appeared on national TV and admitted, “Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky
that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my
part for which I am solely and completely responsible” (Historyplace.com, 2011). The House of Representatives later
impeached Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice, based on the statements he made at the grand jury
investigation and his conduct during the Jones deposition. After a trial in the Senate, he was acquitted of both counts
and thereafter served out his term as president (Historyplace.com, 2011). He was never criminally prosecuted for
perjury or obstruction of justice outside the impeachment procedure, although he was later disbarred for his behavior
(Gearan, A., 2011).
1.
Is it ethical to allow the president to avoid a criminal prosecution for perjury and obstruction of justice
while he is in office? Why or why not?
Check your answer using the answer key at the end of the chapter.
Clinton Declaration and Admission Videos
Clinton: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…”
In this video, President Clinton denies that he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky:
" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs" class="replaced-iframe" onclick="return
replaceIframe(this)" data-url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs">(click to see video)
President Clinton Apologizes to the Nation
In this video, President Clinton admits that he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky:
" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r4e5Wg4PDI" class="replaced-iframe" onclick="return
replaceIframe(this)" data-url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r4e5Wg4PDI">(click to see video)
13.3 Perjury, Bribery, and Obstruction of Justice 499 |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | References
Ala. Code § 13A-10-104, accessed May 6, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/alabama/criminal-code/13A-10-104.html.
Ala.
Code
§ 13A-10-107,
accessed
May
6,
2011,
http://law.onecle.com/alabama/criminal-code/
13A-10-107.html.
Ala.
Code
§ 13A-10-108,
accessed
May
5,
2011,
http://law.onecle.com/alabama/criminal-code/
13A-10-108.html.
Ala. Code § 13A-10-61, accessed May 7, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/alabama/criminal-code/13A-10-61.html.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2807, accessed May 7, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/arizona/criminal-code/13-2807.html.
Cal. Penal Code § 129, accessed May 5, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/129.html.
Cal. Penal Code § 74, accessed May 7, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/74.html.
Cal. Penal Code § 85, accessed May 6, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/85.html.
Cal. Penal Code § 86, http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/86.html.
Cal. Penal Code § 88, accessed May 7, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/88.html.
Cal. Penal Code § 92, accessed May 6, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/92.html.
Cal. Penal Code § 93, http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/93.html.
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), accessed May 9, 2011, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/
95-1853.ZS.html.
Connecticut Jury Instructions § 53a-156, accessed May 5, 2011, http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part4/
4.5-9.htm.
Deposition excerpts, Jones v. Clinton deposition, Historyplace.com website, accessed May 9, 2011,
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/jones-deposition.htm.
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 843.08, accessed May 7, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/843.08.html.
Ga. Code tit. 16 § 16-10-70, accessed May 5, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-10-70.html.
Gearan, A., “Clinton Disbarred by Supreme Court,” Famguardian.org website, accessed May 9, 2011,
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/News/ClintonDisbar-011001.htm.
Historyplace.com
website,
“Presidential
Impeachment
Proceedings,”
accessed
May
9,
2011,
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm.
Jrank.org website, “Perjury—Perjury at Common Law,” accessed May 5, 2011, http://law.jrank.org/pages/1632/
Perjury-Perjury-at-common-law.html.
Legal definition of bribery, Duhaime.org website, accessed May 6, 2011, http://www.duhaime.org/
LegalDictionary/B/Bribery.aspx.
Macur, J., “Bonds Guilty of Obstruction, but Not of Perjury,” New York Times website, accessed May 8, 2011,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/sports/baseball/14bonds.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1.
Mo. Ann. Stat. § 575.040, accessed May 5, 2011, http://www1.law.umkc.edu/suni/CrimLaw/calendar/
Class_4_Mo_perjury.htm.
Mo. Ann. Stat. § 575.040(3) (1), accessed May 5, 2011, http://www1.law.umkc.edu/suni/CrimLaw/calendar/
Class_4_Mo_perjury.htm.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-209, accessed May 6, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/14-criminal-law/
14-209.html.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-210, accessed May 6, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/14-criminal-law/
14-210.html.
500 Criminal Law |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-11, et seq., accessed May 8, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/5a-contempt/
index.html.
N.Y.
Penal
Law
§ 180.00,
accessed
May
6,
2011,
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/
PEN0180.00_180.00.html.
N.Y.
Penal
Law
§ 195.10,
accessed
May
7,
2011,
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/
PEN0195.10_195.10.html.
N.Y.
Penal
Law
§ 200.00,
accessed
May
6,
2011,
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/
PEN0200.00_200.00.html.
N.Y.
Penal
Law
§ 200.03,
accessed
May
6,
2011,
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/
PEN0200.03_200.03.html.
N.Y.
Penal
Law
§ 200.04,
accessed
May
6,
2011,
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/
PEN0200.04_200.04.html.
N.Y. Penal Law § 200.10, http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0200.10_200.10.html.
Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.265, accessed May 6, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/oregon/162-offenses-against-the-state-
and/162.265.html.
Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.295, accessed May 7, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/oregon/162-offenses-against-the-state-
and/162.295.html.
Or. Rev. Stat. §162.275, accessed May 7, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/oregon/162-offenses-against-the-state-
and/162.275.html.
Ortiz, J. L., “Verdict in: Bonds Found Guilty, but Case Not Closed Yet,” USA TODAY website, accessed May
8, 2011, http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2011-04-13-verdict-barry-bonds-guilty_N.htm.
State v. Kimber, 48 Conn. App. 234 (1998), accessed May 5, 2011, http://scholar.google.com/
scholar_case?case=17399056576949304157&q= State+v.+Kimber+48&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5.
Tex. Code of Criminal Procedure, § 38.18, accessed May 5, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/texas/criminal-
procedure/38.18.00.html.
Tex. Penal Code § 38.06, accessed May 8, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/38.06.00.html.
U.S.
v.
Adcock,
558
F.2d
397
(1977),
accessed
May
6,
2011,
http://scholar.google.com/
scholar_case?case=189694239263939940&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr.
U.S.
v.
Gaudin,
515
U.S.
506
(1995),
accessed
May
5,
2011,
http://scholar.google.com/
scholar_case?case=12281686524757008977&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr.
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5104, accessed May 8, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-
offenses/00.051.004.000.html.
18
U.S.C.
§ 1512,
accessed
May
7,
2011,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/
usc_sec_18_00001512—-000-.html.
18
U.S.C.
§ 1621,
accessed
May
5,
2011,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/
usc_sec_18_00001621—-000-.html.
18
U.S.C.
§ 6065,
accessed
May
5,
2011,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/
usc_sec_26_00006065—-000-.html.
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5901, accessed May 5, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/judiciary-and-
judicial-procedure/00.059.001.000.html.
720 ILCS § 5/31-4, accessed May 7, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/31-4.html.
720 ILCS § 5/31-4.5, accessed May 7, 2011, http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/31-4.5.html.
13.3 Perjury, Bribery, and Obstruction of Justice 501 |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | 13.4 End-of-Chapter Material
Summary
The federal government protects national security by primarily regulating crimes against the United States. One of the
only crimes defined in the Constitution, treason, prohibits levying war against the United States, most likely with
general intent or knowingly, or providing aid and comfort to the enemy with the specific intent or purposely to betray
the United States, and is graded as a serious felony with all sentencing options available, including capital punishment.
The Constitution specifies the evidentiary requirement that treason be proven by the testimony of two witnesses or the
defendant’s confession in open court. Sedition criminalizes the advocating, aiding, organizing, or teaching with general
intent or knowingly, or publishing, printing, or circulating writings that advocate, aid, or teach with specific intent or
purposely the forceful or violent overthrow of the US government and is graded as a serious felony that can prohibit the
defendant from holding federal office for five years postconviction. Sabotage is destroying, damaging, or defectively
producing specified property with specific intent or purposely, general intent or knowingly, or negligently to impede
national defense and is graded as a serious felony. Espionage is gathering or transmitting defense information with
general intent or knowingly or the specific intent or purposely to damage the United States or assist any foreign nation,
during peace or war, and is graded as a serious felony with all range of sentencing options available, including capital
punishment.
The federal government also primarily regulates terrorism and terroristic acts using the Omnibus Diplomatic Security
and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, and the USA PATRIOT Act.
The Department of Homeland Security enforces criminal laws targeting terrorism. Terrorism is violent acts committed
inside (domestic) or outside (international) the United States that appear to be intended to influence a civilian population
or government by intimidation or to affect the conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
Currently prohibited as terrorism or terroristic conduct are murder, use of a weapon of mass destruction, bombing places
of public use, financing terrorism, harboring a terrorist, and conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the foregoing. The
USA PATRIOT Act expands government surveillance capabilities, so it is subject to a Fourth Amendment challenge as
an unreasonable search, and also prohibits financing terrorism, so it is subject to a First Amendment challenge as a
prohibition on free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to associate.
The state and federal government both criminalize conduct that impedes the administration of justice, including
perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice. Perjury is typically defined as a false material oral or written statement made
under oath or affirmation with the specific intent or purposely to deceive, or the general intent or knowingly that the
statement is false, in a judicial or official proceeding or in a certified writing. The biggest issues encountered in a
perjury prosecution are proving the validity of the oath, the defendant’s criminal intent, the materiality of the false
statement, and any requirement of corroborative evidence. One defense to perjury is retraction of the false material
statement during the same judicial or official proceeding before it becomes manifest that the falsity will be exposed.
Many jurisdictions also criminalize perjury committed by inconsistent statements made under oath or affirmation in an
official or judicial proceeding and subornation of perjury, which is procuring another to commit perjury with specific
intent or purposely. Perjury and subornation of perjury are typically graded as felonies. Bribery is conferring, offering,
agreeing to confer, or soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept a benefit upon a public official, employee, legislator,
participant in a judicial proceeding, or sports official with the specific intent or purposely, or the general intent or
knowingly to influence the bribed individual’s decision making. The most difficult bribery element to prove is the
criminal intent element. Bribery is typically graded as a felony. Obstruction of justice crimes interfere with the orderly
administration of justice. Examples of obstruction of justice offenses are giving false identification to a law enforcement
officer, impersonating a law enforcement officer, refusing to aid a law enforcement officer when requested, giving false
evidence, hiding or concealing oneself and refusing to give evidence, tampering with evidence, and tampering with a
witness or juror, with specific intent or purposely, or general intent or knowingly. Obstruction of justice is graded as a
misdemeanor or felony, depending on the offense.
502 |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | You Be the USA
You are an assistant US attorney starting your first day on the job. You have been presented with four case files and
told to review them and recommend criminal prosecutions based on the facts. Read each one and then decide which
crime should be prosecuted. Check your answers using the answer key at the end of the chapter.
1.
The defendant, an army intelligence analyst stationed near Baghdad, Iraq, downloaded thousands of
classified Iraq and Afghanistan documents and confidential cables and released them to an ex-computer
hacker who thereafter exposed them to the public. Which crime should be prosecuted: treason or
obstruction of justice? Read about this case at this link: http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/bradley-
manning-charged-with-22-crimes-including-capital-offense-aiding-the-enemy.
2.
The defendant typed up notes while her husband was analyzing sketches of a top-secret bomb’s design for
the purpose of passing the design on to another nation. Which crime should be prosecuted: conspiracy to
commit espionage or sabotage? Read about this case at this link: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/
ftrials/rosenb/ROS_ACCT.HTM.
3.
The defendant, a cosmetic company, paid Chinese officials to obtain direct licensing of its product in
China. Which crime should be prosecuted: harboring terrorists abroad or bribery? Read about this case
at this link: http://fortune.com/2014/12/17/avon-bribery-probe-settlement/.
4.
The defendant, a corrections officer, lied to federal law enforcement during an investigation of her role in
the assault of an inmate. Which crime should be prosecuted: perjury or obstruction of justice? Read about
this case at this link: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_3d7cd11a-8f67-11df-
bc07-00127992bc8b.html.
Cases of Interest
•
Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952), discusses a treason conviction based on the treatment of American
POWs: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14270191881160802490&q=
%22treason%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5.
•
U.S. v. Rosen, 445 F.Supp.2d 602 (2006), discusses prosecution under the Espionage Act:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18013989744527722325&q=
%2218+U.S.C.+793%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5.
•
Schultz v. Sykes, 638 N.W. 2d 604 (2001), discusses the dismissal of a civil case based on subornation of
perjury: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3885876526561644390&q=%22subornation
+of+perjury%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2000.
Articles of Interest
•
Treason prosecutions in modern times: http://www.nysun.com/editorials/time-of-treason/41533
•
The trial of Faisal Shahzad: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1005/Life-sentence-for -Faisal-
Shahzad-could-join-shoe-bomber-in-Colorado
•
The extension of certain portions of the USA PATRIOT Act: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/
patriot-act-extension-signed-into-law-despite-bipartisan-resistance-in-congress/2011/05/27/
13.4 End-of-Chapter Material 503 |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | AGbVlsCH_story.html
•
The famous perjury trial of Alger Hiss: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/alger-hiss -convicted-
of-perjury
•
High-profile bribery cases: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/01/bribery-usa-cases-idUSN
0121072820100401
•
The criminal prosecution of a sitting president: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/
2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222.pdf
Websites of Interest
•
The U.S. v. Lindh case: http://notablecases.vaed.uscourts.gov/1:02-cr-00037/Index.html
•
Information about terrorism: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/areyouready/terrorism.pdf
•
Information about the USA PATRIOT Act: http://civilrights.uslegal.com/usa-patriot-act
•
The Department of Homeland Security: http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm
Statistics of Interest
•
Terrorism: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications
•
Bribery: http://www.oecd.org/corruption/
Answers to Exercises
From Section 13.1 “Crimes Involving National Security”
1.
Stephanie has not committed sedition because she did not advocate for the use of force or violence or the
commission of an unlawful act. Stephanie’s speech is most likely protected because she might be
envisioning a peaceful government overthrow by legitimate means.
2.
The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the defendants’ convictions for sabotage, stating
that the specific intent or purposely to impede the US national defense could be gleaned from the
defendants’ conduct in deliberately damaging the missiles.
3.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld the defendant’s disbarment based on convictions for
crimes of moral turpitude, and stated that other than treason, no act was more base, vile, or depraved than an
intentional act to breach the confidentiality of national defense secrets that have come into the hands of an
individual.
504 Criminal Law |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | class=”title”>Answers to Exercises
From Section 13.2 “Crimes Involving Terrorism”
1.
Whether or not this is an act of terrorism requires more information. Although the killing takes place in
front of the Pakistani Embassy within the territory of the United States, this evidence is not enough to prove
that Joshua intended his conduct to influence a civilian population or government by intimidation or to
affect the government’s conduct by assassination. The location of the shooting could be a pure coincidence,
and Joshua could have a nonterroristic motive for the killing, such as a personal hatred or malice toward
Khalid.
2.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the statute, which was in place before September
11, 2001, and under AEDPA prohibited domestic material support to terrorists and terroristic organizations.
The court held that the statute was not an unconstitutional prohibition on the right of free association or
expression under the First Amendment, nor did it violate federal due process under the Fifth Amendment by
granting the secretary of state unfettered and unreviewable authority to designate organizations as terroristic.
However, the court affirmed the US District Court’s decision that portions of the statute defining
“personnel” and “training” were unconstitutionally vague.
3.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the statute against a Fifth Amendment due process
challenge by construing the statute to require proof that the defendant act with the general intent or
knowledge of the terrorist organization’s designation or of the unlawful activities that caused it to be so
designated.
Answers to Exercises
From Section 13.3 “Perjury, Bribery, and Obstruction of Justice”
1.
The primary issue in Susannah’s perjury prosecution is the materiality of her false statement made under
oath in a judicial proceeding. While Susannah was asked her age during routine background questions, her
lie might still be material if her advanced age affected her vision because Susannah is testifying about an
important personal observation. In many jurisdictions, the trier of fact, which could be a jury, determines
the materiality of this statement.
2.
The Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld the defendant’s bribery conviction, holding that offering gifts
to state police officers is not a lesser included offense of bribery because it requires specific intent, and
bribery under Connecticut law is not a specific intent crime.
3.
The New York Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction because the defendant did not have a
complaint filed against him, so the “witness” was not about to testify in a judicial proceeding, which is
required under the witness tampering statute.
Answer to Law and Ethics Question
1.
The criminal prosecution of a sitting president would set a good example for the citizens of the United
States, but it would pose an immense disruption to the orderly functioning of the government without a
leader or commander in chief of the armed forces and would also expose the nation to a security risk. The
US Supreme Court decision to allow a civil lawsuit against the president forced him to spend time away
13.4 End-of-Chapter Material 505 |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | from office attending depositions that were protracted and inordinately time consuming. If the case had not
been dismissed, the president would have expended an additional amount of time and effort in preparing for
and defending against the Jones lawsuit. A similar and even more time-consuming disruptive process would
ensue if a sitting president were to be criminally prosecuted. Not only would the criminal prosecution
require a series of procedures from arrest, indictment, and discovery through pretrial motions, hearings, and
the trial itself, but if the president were to be convicted, the consequences to the nation would be
irreparable. It might not be ethical to spare a sitting president a criminal prosecution when a “normal
person” would not be spared, but the ethical concerns are outweighed by the important interests at stake, and
most countries would protect their leaders from this type of legal action while in office.
Answers to You Be the USA
1.
This conduct aids the enemy, rather than impeding the administration of justice by interfering with law
enforcement procedure, criminal prosecution, or conviction, so the proper crime to prosecute is treason.
2.
Copying a top-secret design and providing it to another nation is spying, rather than destroying,
damaging, or producing defective property to impede national defense, so the proper crime to prosecute is
conspiracy to commit espionage.
3.
This payment is made for the purpose of influencing a public official’s decision, rather than harboring a
terrorist abroad, so the proper crime to prosecute is bribery.
4.
The defendant was not under oath when she made the false statement. She was giving false evidence and
impeding a law enforcement investigation, so the proper crime to prosecute is obstruction of justice.
506 Criminal Law |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | Chapter 14: Appendix A: Case Listings
Chapter 1 “Introduction to Criminal Law”
•
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)
•
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006)
•
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
•
Johnson v. Pearce, 148 N.C.App. 199 (2001)
•
State v. Gillison, 766 N.W. 2d 649 (2009)
•
Campbell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 693 (1999)
•
Keeler v. Superior Court, 470 P.2d 617 (1970)
•
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
•
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1Cranch) 137 (1803)
•
Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223 (2001)
•
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
•
Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004)
•
People v. Wrotten, 2010 NY Slip Op 04501 (2010)
•
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999)
•
Padilla v. Gonzales, 397 F.3d 1016 (2005)
•
Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001)
•
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
•
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
•
United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812)
•
Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002)
Chapter 2 “The Legal System in the United States”
•
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
•
U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 518 (2000)
•
Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956)
•
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
•
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)
•
United States v. P.H.E., Inc., 965 F.2d 848 (1992)
507 |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | •
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010)
•
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977)
•
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993)
•
Robles v. State, 758 N.E. 2d 581 (2001)
•
Donahue v. Burl Cain, 231 F.3d 1000 (2000)
•
State v. Hall, 966 P.2d 208 (1998)
•
Richards v. Florida, No. 4008-4216 (2010)
•
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
•
Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (2004)
•
U.S. v. Comstock, 627 F.3d 513 (2010)
•
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
•
Commonwealth v. Webster, 59 Mass. 295 (1850)
•
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)
•
U.S. v. Arizona, No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB (2010)
Chapter 3 “Constitutional Protections”
•
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
•
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003)
•
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003)
•
Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974)
•
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
•
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
•
R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
•
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
•
Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974)
•
United States v. Stevens, 552 U.S. 442 (2010)
•
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 47 (1993)
•
Reno v. American Civ. Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
•
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (2010)
•
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
•
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
•
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
•
District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)
•
McDonald v. Chicago, No. 08-1521 (2010)
•
Lewis v. U.S., 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
508 Criminal Law |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | •
U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
•
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
•
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)
•
Baze v. Rees, 128 S. Ct. 1520 (2008)
•
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977)
•
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 128 S. Ct. 2641 (2008)
•
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)
•
U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)
•
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)
•
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003)
•
Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F.3d 301 (1996)
•
Gall v. U.S., 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007)
•
South Dakota v. Asmussen, 668 N.W.2d 725 (2003)
•
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010)
•
U.S. v. Alvarez, 617 F.3d 1198 (2010)
•
Snyder v. Phelps, No. 09-751 (2011)
•
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)
•
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965)
•
U.S. v. White, 882 F.2d 250 (1989)
•
Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926)
•
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)
•
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
•
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
•
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
•
R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
•
Sable Communis. of California, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989)
•
Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
•
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942)
•
Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (1974)
•
Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972)
•
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
•
Virginia v. Black, 535 U.S. 343 (2003)
•
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
•
City of Erie et al v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000)
•
Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007)
•
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
•
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)
•
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
Chapter 14: Appendix A: Case Listings 509 |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | •
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003)
Chapter 4 “The Elements of a Crime”
•
State ex rel. Kuntz v. Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 995 P.2d 951 (2000)
•
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)
•
Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968)
•
Oler v. State, 998 S.W.2d 363 (1999)
•
Staples v. U.S., 511 U.S. 600 (1994)
•
Morissette v. U.S., 342 U.S. 246 (1952)
•
State v. Crosby, 154 P.3d 97 (2007)
•
State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St. 3d 466 (2010)
•
Dean v. U.S., 129 S.Ct. 1849 (2009)
•
Bullock v. State, 775 A.2d. 1043 (2001)
•
Commonwealth v. Casanova, 429 Mass. 293 (1999)
•
State v. Andrews, 572 S.E.2d 798 (2002)
•
State v. Sowry, 155 Ohio App. 3d 742 (2004)
•
Regalado v. U.S., 572 A.2d 416 (1990)
•
State v. Slayton, 154 P.3d 1057 (2007)
•
State v. Kanavy, 4 A.3d 991 (2010)
•
U.S. v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186 (2009)
•
People v. Roberts, 826 P.2d 274 (1992)
•
Govt. of Virgin Islands v. Smith, 278 F.2d 169 (1960)
•
State ex rel. Kuntz v. Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 995 P.2d 951 (2000)
•
Jones v. U.S., 308 F.2d 307 (1962)
•
State v. Davis, 84 Conn. App. 505 (2004)
•
U.S. v. Pompanio, 429 U.S. 10 (1976)
•
People v. McDaniel, 24 Cal. 3d 661 (1979)
•
Commonwealth v. Ely, 444 N.E. 2d 1276 (1983)
•
State v. Huff, 469 A.2d 1251 (1984)
•
Key v. State, 890 So. 2d 1043 (2002)
Chapter 5 “Criminal Defenses, Part 1”
•
State v. Burkhart, 565 S.E.2d 298 (2002)
510 Criminal Law |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | •
Hoagland v. State, 240 P.3d 1043 (2010)
•
Rodriguez v. State, 212 S.W.3d 819 (2006)
•
Shuler v. Babbitt, 49 F.Supp.2d 1165 (1998)
•
Menendez v. Terhune, 422 F.3d 1012 (2005)
•
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
•
Commonwealth v. Alexander, 531 S.E.2d 567 (2000)
•
Dutton v. Hayes-Pupko, No. 03-06-00438 (2008)
•
People v. Lovercamp, 43 Cal. App. 3d 823 (1974)
•
State v. Daoud, 141 N.H. 142 (1996)
•
Donaldson v. Lungren, 2 Cal. App. 4th 1614 (1992)
•
Ramey v. State, 417 S.E.2d 699 (1992)
•
State v. Perez, 840 P.2d 1118 (1992)
•
Allison v. Birmingham, 580 So.2d 1377 (1991)
•
Roy v. Inhabitants of Lewiston, 42 F.3d 691 (1994)
•
U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001)
•
Acers v. United States, 164 U.S. 388 (1896)
•
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
•
State v. Rogers, 912 S.W.2d 670 (1995)
•
State v. Williams 644 P.2d 889 (1982)
•
State v. Belgard, 410 So.2d 720 (1982)
•
State v. Taylor, 858 P.2d 1358 (1993)
•
Bechtel v. State, 840 P.2d 1 (1992)
•
State v. Sandoval, 130 P.3d 808 (2006)
•
State v. Faulkner, 483 A.2d 759 (1984)
•
People v. Kurr, 654 N.W.2d 651 (2002)
•
Commonwealth v. Miranda, No. 08-P-2094 (2010)
•
State v. Curley, Docket # 0000011.WA, (Wash. App. 2010)
•
People v. Ceballos, 12 Cal.3d 470 (1974)
•
State v. Holmes, 129 Ohio Misc. 2d 38 (2004)
Chapter 6 “Criminal Defenses, Part 2”
•
Durham v. U.S., 214 F.2d 862 (1954)
•
U.S. v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (1972)
•
State v. Guido, 191 A.2d 45 (1993)
•
State v. Hornsby, 484 S.E.2d 869 (1997)
Chapter 14: Appendix A: Case Listings 511 |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | •
People v. Register, 60 N.Y.2d 270 (1983)
•
Garnett v. State, 632 A.2d 797 (1993)
•
Sosa v. Jones, 389 F.3d 644 (2004)
•
Farley v. State, 848 So.2d 393 (2003)
•
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006)
•
State v. Ramer, 86 P.3d 132 (2004)
•
People v. Garcia, 87 P.3d 159 (2003)
•
Sebesta v. State, 783 S.W.2d 811 (1990)
•
U.S. v. Hinckley, 493 F.Supp. 2d 65 (2007)
•
Legue v. State, 688 N.E.2d 408 (1997)
•
U.S. v. Albertini, 830 F.2d 985 (1987)
•
Queen v. M’Naghten, 10 Clark & F.200, 2 Eng. Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843)
•
State v. Crenshaw, 659 P.2d 488 (1983)
•
State v. Skaggs, 586 P.2d 1279 (1978)
•
State v. Worlock, 569 A.2d 1314 (1990)
•
State v. White, 270 P.2d 727 (1954)
•
Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966)
•
Hopkins v. State, 69 A.2d 456 (1949)
•
People v. Olsen, 685 P.2d 52 (1984)
•
People v. Barraza, 23 Cal.3d 675 (1979)
•
Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010)
Chapter 7 “Parties to Crime”
•
New York Central R. Co. v. U.S., 212 U.S. 481 (1909)
•
State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425 (1981)
•
People v. Premier House, Inc., 662 N.Y.S 2d 1006 (1997)
•
Commonwealth v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., 456 Mass. 826 (2010)
•
U.S. v. Hill, 268 F.3d 1140 (2001)
•
State v. Truesdell, 620 P.2d 427 (1980)
•
Collins v. State, 438 So. 2d 1036 (1983)
•
State v. Jackson, 137 Wn. 2d 712 (1999)
•
U.S. v. L.E. Meyers Co., 562 F.3d 845 (2009)
•
State v. Melvin, No. 382PA09 (North Carolina 2010)
•
State v. Merida-Medina, 191 P.3d 708 (2008)
•
State v. Guminga, 395 N.W.2d 344 (1986)
512 Criminal Law |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | •
Staten v. State, 519 So. 2d 622 (1988)
•
Commonwealth v. Hargrave, 745 A.2d 20 (2000)
•
People v. Rolon, 160 Cal. App. 4th 1206 (2008)
•
People v. Lauria, 251 Cal. App. 2d 471 (1967)
•
Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247, 251 n. 8 (1997)
•
Standefer v. U.S., 447 U.S. 10 (1980)
•
State v. Akers, 400 A.2d 38 (1979)
•
Joubert v. State, 235 S.W.3d 729 (2007)
Chapter 8 “Inchoate Offenses”
•
People v. Hart, 176 Cal. App. 3d 662 (2009)
•
U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966)
•
Reynolds v. State, 207 Tex. App. LEXIS 6139 (2007)
•
Rex v. Scofield, Cald. 397 (1784)
•
Rex v. Higgins, 102 Eng. Rep. 269 (K.B. 1801)
•
State v. Withrow, 8 S.W.3d 75 (1999)
•
People v. Strand, 539 N.W.2d 739 (1995)
•
Pinkerton v. U.S., 328 U.S. 640 (1946)
•
State v. Blackmer, 816 A.2d 1014 (2003)
•
Commonwealth v. Roux, 350 A.2d 867 (1976)
•
People v. Han, 78 Cal. App. 4th 797 (2000)
•
Planter v. State, 9 S.W. 3d 156 (1999)
•
People v. Dennis, 340 N.W.2d 81 (1983)
•
U.S. v. Contreras, 950 F.2d 232 (1991)
•
People v. Miller, 856 N.Y.S. 2d 443 (2008)
•
State v. Montgomery, 22 Conn. App. 340 (1990)
•
State v. Pinson, 895 P.2d 274 (1995)
•
Grill v. State, 337 Md. 91 (1995)
•
People v. Luna, 170 Cal. App. 4th 535 (2009)
•
Commonwealth v. Hamel, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 250 (2001)
•
People v. Dillon, 668 P.2d 697 (1983)
•
Hamiel v. Wisconsin, 285 N.W.2d 639 (1979)
•
U.S. v. Mandujano, 499 F.2d 370, 373 fn. 5, (1974)
•
Dennis v. U.S., 341 U.S. 494 (1951),
•
State v. Bond, 49 Conn. App. 183 (1998)
Chapter 14: Appendix A: Case Listings 513 |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | •
State v. Verive, 627 P.2d 721 (1981)
•
State v. Lewis, 220 Conn. 602 (1991)
•
U.S. v. Castaneda, 9 F.3d 761 (1993)
•
Ianelli v. U.S, 420 U.S. 770, 785 (1975)
•
Callanan v. U.S., 364 U.S. 587 (1961)
•
Clune v. U.S., 159 U.S. 590 (1895)
•
Commonwealth v. Barsell, 424 Mass. 737 (1997)
Chapter 9 “Criminal Homicide”
•
People v. Cole, 95 P.3d 811 (2004)
•
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
•
U.S. v. Moore, 846 F.2d 1163 (1988)
•
State v. West, 844 S.W.2d 144 (1992)
•
U.S. v. Downs, 56 F.3d 973 (1995)
•
People v. Anderson, 666 N.W.2d 696 (2003)
•
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982)
•
Berry v. Superior Court, 208 Cal. App. 3d 783 (1989)
•
Dowda v. State, 776 So.2d 714 (2000)
•
Stevens v. State, 691 N.E.2d 412 (1997)
•
Tripp v. State, 374 A.2d 384 (1977)
•
Walker v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.3d 112 (1988)
•
People v. Taylor, 86 P.3d 881 (2004)
•
State v. Evangelista, 353 S.E.2d 375 (1987)
•
Wood v. State, 620 S.E.2d 348 (2005)
•
State v. Warmke, 879 A.2d 30 (2005)
•
United States v. Watson, 501 A.2d 791 (1985)
•
Calderon v. Prunty, 59 F.3d 1005 (1995)
•
Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975)
•
People v. Ochoa, 966 P.2d 442 (1999)
•
Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 619 (1970)
•
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
•
People v. Carines, 597 N.W. 2d 130 (1999)
•
Acers v. United States, 164 U.S. 388 (1896)
•
Hawthorne v. State, 835 So. 2d 14 (2003)
•
People v. Anderson, 447 P.2d 942 (1968)
514 Criminal Law |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | •
State v. Snowden, 313 P.2d 706 (1957)
•
Commonwealth v. Carroll, 412 Pa. 525 (1963)
•
State v. Schrader, 302 SE 2d 70 (1982)
•
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 128 S. Ct. 2641 (2008)
•
State v. Hoang, 755 P.2d 7 (1988)
•
People v. Hernandez, 82 N.Y.2d 309 (1993)
•
State v. Canola, 73 N.J. 206 (1977)
•
People v. Young, 105 P.2d 487 (2005)
•
People v. Steele, 47 P.2d 225 (2002)
•
Ohio v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (1992)
•
Girouard v. State, 583 A.2d 718 (1991)
•
State v. Cole, 338 S.C. 97 (2000)
•
State v. Doub III, 32 Kan.App.2d 1087 (2004)
Chapter 10 “Sex Offenses and Crimes Involving Force, Fear, and Physical Restraint”
•
State v. Salaman, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008)
•
Toomer v. State, 529 SE 2d 719 (2000)
•
Fleming v. State, 323 SW 3d 540 (2010)
•
State v. Higgs, 601 N.W.2d 653 (1999)
•
Commonwealth v. Henson, 259 N.E.2d 769 (1970)
•
State v. Holbach, 2009 ND 37 (2009)
•
Burke v. State, 676 S.E.2d 766 (2009)
•
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 828 A.2d 1094 (2003)
•
U.S. v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997)
•
Oregon v. Rangel, 934 P.2d 1128 (1997)
•
Chatwin v. U.S, 326 U.S. 455 (1946)
•
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 128 S.Ct. 2641 (2008)
•
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
•
Iowa v. Vander Esch, 662 N.W. 2d 689 (2002)
•
Boro v. Superior Court, 163 Cal. App. 3d 1224 (1985)
•
In re John Z., 29 Cal. 4th 756 (2003)
•
State v. Borthwick, 880 P.2d 1261 (1994)
•
State v. Lile, 699 P.2d 456 (1985)
•
People v. Mayberry, 542 P.2d 1337 (1975)
•
State v. Plunkett, 934 P.2d 113 (1997)
Chapter 14: Appendix A: Case Listings 515 |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | •
Associated Press et. al. v. District Court for the Fifth Judicial District of Colorado, 542 U.S. 1301 (2004)
•
State of New Jersey in the Interest of M.T.S., 609 A.2d 1266 (1972)
•
People v. Liberta, 64 N.Y. 2d 152 (1984)
•
Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464 (1981)
•
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
•
Commonwealth v. Matthews, 205 PA Super 92 (2005)
•
People v. Nickens, 685 NW 2d 657 (2004)
•
Clark v. Commonwealth, 676 S.E.2d 332 (2009)
•
Commonwealth v. Porro, 458 Mass. 526 (2010)
•
People v. Dominguez, 140 P.2d 866 (2006)
Chapter 11 “Crimes against Property”
•
State v. Larson, 605 N.W. 2d 706 (2000)
•
People v. Traster, 111 Cal. App. 4th 1377 (2003)
•
U.S. v. Ingles, 445 F.3d 830 (2006)
•
State v. Robertson, 531 S. E. 2d 490 (2000)
•
People v. Pratt, 656 N.W.2d 866 (2002)
•
Butler v. Florida, (Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 2009)
•
In the Matter of V.V.C., No. 04-07-00166 CV (Tex.: Court of Appeals, 2008)
•
People v. Beaver, 186 Cal. App. 4th 107 (2010)
•
State v. Castillo, Docket No. 29, 641 (NM: 2011)
•
People v. Nowack, 614 N.W.2d 78 (2000)
•
Britt v. Commonwealth, 667 S.E.2d 763 (2008)
•
Commonwealth v. Mills, 436 Mass. 387 (2002)
•
Itin v. Ungar, 17 P.3d 129 (2000)
•
In the Matter of Schwimmer, 108 P.3d 761 (2005)
•
People v. Lueth, 660 N.W.2d 322 (2002)
•
People v. Curtin, 22 Cal. App. 4th 528 (1994)
•
People v. Beaver, 186 Cal. App. 4th 107 (2010)
•
Durland v. U.S., 161 U.S. 306, 313 (1896),
•
U.S. v. McClelland, 868 F.2d 704 (1989)
•
S.W. v. State, 513 So. 2d 1088 (1987)
•
State v. Handburgh, 830 P.2d 641 (1992)
•
Jones v. State, 652 So. 2d 346 (1995)
•
Metheny v. State, 755 A.2d 1088 (2000)
516 Criminal Law |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | •
Williams v. State, 91 S.W. 3d 54 (2002)
•
Commonwealth v. Hallums, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 50 (2004)
•
People v. Nible, 200 Cal. App. 3d 838 (1988)
•
State v. Hall, 3 P.3d 582 (2000)
•
People v. Nunley, 168 Cal. App. 3d 225 (1985)
•
State v. Allen, 110 P. 3d 849 (2005)
•
State v. Reavis, 700 S.E.2d 33 (2010)
•
People v. Atkins, 25 Cal. 4th 76 (2001)
•
Ursulita v. State, Docket No. A10A1733 (Georgia 2011)
Chapter 12 “Crimes against the Public”
•
People v. Acuna, 14 Cal. 4th 1090 (1997)
•
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972)
•
State v. Russell, 890 A.2d 453 (2006)
•
People v. Hoffstead, 905 N.Y.S.2d 736 (2010)
•
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)
•
Ortiz v. NYS Parole in Bronx, 586 F.3d 149 (2009)
•
People v. Englebrecht, 88 Cal. App. 4th 1236 (2001)
•
Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W. 3d 402 (2005)
•
People v. Watson, No. 90962, (Ohio 2120 2009)
•
Love v. Superior Court, 226 Cal. App. 3d 736 (1990)
•
Satterfield v. State, 395 S.E. 2d 816 (1990)
•
Silvar v. Dist. Ct., 129 P.3d 682 (2006)
•
Manduley v. Superior Court, 41 P.3d 3 (2002)
•
State v. Bradshaw, 98 P.3d 1190 (2004)
•
Roulette v. City of Seattle, 97 F.3d 300 (1996)
•
Noy v. State, 83 P.3d 538 (2003)
•
Phillips v. State, 25 So. 3d 404 (2010)
•
In re BW, 313 S.W. 3d 818 (2010)
•
Wolfe v. State, 24 P.3d 1252 (2001)
•
Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)
•
Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)
•
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)
•
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)
•
Gresham v. Peterson, 225 F.3d 899 (2000)
Chapter 14: Appendix A: Case Listings 517 |
Criminal-Law-1614009746.pdf | •
Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (2006)
•
People v. Sanchez, 888 N.Y.S. 2d 352 (2009)
•
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)
•
People v. Parra, 70 Cal. App. 4th 222 (1999)
•
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
•
U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001)
Chapter 13 “Crimes against the Government”
•
U.S. v. Adcock, 558 F.2d 397 (1977)
•
U.S v. Burr, 25 F Cas 55 (1807)
•
Haupt v. U.S., 330 U.S. 631 (1947)
•
Cramer v. U.S., 325 U.S. 1, 34, 35 (1945)
•
Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298 (1957)
•
U.S. v. Kabat, 797 Fed.2d 580 (1986)
•
In re Squillacote, 790 A.2d 514 (2002)
•
Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno, 205 F.3d 1130 (2000)
•
Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Department of Justice, 352 F.3d 382 (2003)
•
State v. Carr, 172 Conn. 458 (1977)
•
People v. Silverberg, 771 N.Y.S. 2d 274 (2003)
•
Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952)
•
U.S. v. Rosen, 445 F.Supp.2d 602 (2006)
•
Schultz v. Sykes, 638 N.W. 2d 604 (2001)
•
Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956)
•
U.S. v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 236 (2010)
•
State v. Kimber, 48 Conn. App. 234 (1998)
•
U.S. v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995)
•
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
518 Criminal Law |
Subsets and Splits