Blog:Case Reviews/U.S. Supreme Court 05-26-11 - Revision history

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T02:02:49Z

Importing text file

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T02:02:49Z

Importing text file

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T00:23:35Z

Importing text file

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T00:23:34Z

Importing text file

New page

''Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
* ''Requisite Proof for Witness Tampering 18 USC § 1512(a)(1)(C)
''* ''Automatic Exclusions under the Speedy Trial Act

In addition to its decision in ''Camreta v. Greene'', the Court issued two other criminal opinions today. However, both involve the construction of federal statutes.

====Requisite Proof for Witness Tampering 18 USC § 1512(a)(1)(C)====

In ''Fowler v. United States'', the Court addressed whether a defendant can be convicted of murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C), which is part of the federal witness-tampering statute, without proof that information regarding a possible federal crime would have been transferred from the victim to '''federal '''law enforcement officers or judges.

The circumstances of this case narrowed the issue to cases "where a defendant killed a person with an intent to prevent that person from communicating with law enforcement officers in general but where the defendant did not have federal law enforcement officers (or any specific individuals) particularly in mind." The Court answers that "in such circumstances, the Government must show that there was a '''reasonable likelihood''' that a relevant communication would have been made to a federal officer" in addition to the defendant's general intent.

More information can be found at the SCOTUSblog [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fowler-v-united-states?wpmp_switcher=desktop case page available here].

[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-5443.pdf ''Fowler v. United States'']

====Automatic Exclusions under the Speedy Trial Act====

In ''United States v. Tinklenberg'', the Court addressed whether the time between the filing of a pretrial motion and its disposition is automatically excluded from the deadline for commencing trial under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, or is instead excluded only if the motion actually causes a postponement, or the expectation of a postponement, of the trial.

The Court answers that "the filing of a pretrial motion falls within [18 USC §3161(h)(1)(D)] irrespective of whether it actually causes, or is expected to cause, delay." Therefore, the time between filing and disposition is automatically excluded.

On an additional point, the Court also notes that days and weekends are included in the ten-day counting period features in § 3161(h)(1)(F), which provides that in certain circumstances the time required to transport prisoners is automatically excluded up to a ten-day maximum. The Court's decision is premised upon its rejection of the idea that the STA incorporated former Fed.R.Crim.P 45.

More information can be found at the SCOTUSblog [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-tinklenberg?wpmp_switcher=desktop case page available here.]

[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1498.pdf ''United States v. Tinklenberg'']

{{wl-publish: 2011-05-25 21:00:00 -0700 | grapkoch }}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-''Read the full article for details about the following new cases:''
+''Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
-* Court Moots Issue Concerning Warrants for Child Interviews
+* ''Requisite Proof for Witness Tampering 18 USC § 1512(a)(1)(C)
-<blockquote>
+In addition to its decision in ''Camreta v. Greene'', the Court issued two other criminal opinions today. However, both involve the construction of federal statutes.
-''In this case, the happenstance of S.G.'s moving across country and becoming an adult has deprived Camreta of his appeal rights. Mootness has frustrated his ability to challenge the Court of Appeals' ruling that he must obtain a warrant before interviewing a suspected child abuse victim at school. We therefore vacate the part of the Ninth Circuit's opinion that addressed that issue, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.''
+====Requisite Proof for Witness Tampering 18 USC § 1512(a)(1)(C)====
-</blockquote>
+In ''Fowler v. United States'', the Court addressed whether a defendant can be convicted of murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C), which is part of the federal witness-tampering statute, without proof that information regarding a possible federal crime would have been transferred from the victim to '''federal '''law enforcement officers or judges.
-Two concurring opinions appear (authored by Scalia and Sotomayor (joined by Breyer)), as well as one dissenting opinion (Kennedy joined by Thomas). For the most part, those opinions are targeted at the majority's decision that a party who prevails due to qualified immunity may nevertheless seek certiorari on the constitutional question at issue so long as the issue is justiciable in all other respects.
+The circumstances of this case narrowed the issue to cases "where a defendant killed a person with an intent to prevent that person from communicating with law enforcement officers in general but where the defendant did not have federal law enforcement officers (or any specific individuals) particularly in mind." The Court answers that "in such circumstances, the Government must show that there was a '''reasonable likelihood''' that a relevant communication would have been made to a federal officer" in addition to the defendant's general intent.
-For more infomation, the ''Camreta ''case page at SCOTUSblog is [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/camreta-v-greene?wpmp_switcher=desktop available here].
+More information can be found at the SCOTUSblog [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fowler-v-united-states?wpmp_switcher=desktop case page available here].
-[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1454.pdf ''Camreta v. Greene'']
 {{wl-publish: 2011-05-25 21:00:00 -0700 | grapkoch }}