Cases Flashcards
1
Q
Lopez
A
.Commerce clause. The Commerce Clause permits congressional regulation of three categories:
- the channels of interstate commerce; [Lopez Category #1]
- the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce (even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities) [Lopez 2]; and
- activities that “substantially affect” interstate commerce [Lopez 3]. USSC controlling test for determining whether regulated activity “substantially effects” interstate commerce: “We must consider:
2
Q
Dixon
A
- Legal standard for federal common law defenses?
- D must prove duress by preponderance of the evidence
- Majority: “we must determine what that defense
would look like as Congress ‘may have contemplated’ it.”
3
Q
Durland
A
- New Federal crimes often had no clear counterpart to CL crimes.
- CL covered false statements of material fact, not false promises.
- USSC found that mail fraud statute extended farther than what CL did.
- RULE: What matters is Congress’s intent. Statutory Law is what Congress intended the statute to mean.
4
Q
McNally
A
- Blockbuster case
- Theft of honest services is not included and mail and wire fraud
- State officials got kickbacks from insurance co.s.
- USSC reverses convictions.
- Holds that mail fraud reaches only deprivation of propertyrights, based on:
- Structure of text (conjunctive)
- Legislative history
- Federalism
5
Q
Skilling
A
- .Holding: in the statute means that means the particular intangible right of honest services protected in pre-mcnally crimes like bribery and kick-backs, but not in thingies like conflict of interest
6
Q
Pinkerton
A
- Imposes liability on a conspirator for all crime or offenses committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, the rule imposes liability on the conspirator even if those offenses are actually performed by co-conspirators. These can be acts before they joined the conspiracy
- Withdrawal
- Have to do an act to disavow or defeat purpose of conspiracy
- If crime continues, your liable
7
Q
Booker
A
- Sentencing Guidlines are Advisory, now that they they are advisory they allow for a judge to take an individualized assessment
- if you go outside the guidlines write a reason so it can be judged on appeal for abuse of discretion
8
Q
Screws
A
- Facts: Screws was a police officer, who arrested a black person, and beat him to death. He had a personal grudge with this man. He was found guilty of violating 242; depriving the man of the right to life, and due process of law.
- Issue: Whether Screws was acting under the “color of law”?
- Holding: “Misuse or power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken under the color of state law.” In this case, Screws had acted under his official duties when he arrested the man, so he acted under the color of law.
- The term willfully in 242 means particular purpose or reckless disregard, therefore it is enough to trigger 242 liability if it can be proved D violated a const. protected right. We only have Screws to guide us.
- Screws upholds 242 against a due process challenge by reading a higher mens rea requirement of Willfully
9
Q
Apprendi
A
If it doesn’t add to maximum –> prove at sentencing weight of drugs absent jury
If adds to maximum possible sentence –> then jury must decide weight with proof beyond a reasonable doubt
10
Q
Yannotti - RICO
A
- Individual Ds need not ever be fully informed of complete intent or identity of all co-conspirators or their substantive offenses
- as long as he possesses knowledge of and agrees to the general contours of the endeavor
- Not too broad - as it is applied by the prosecutor it is being applied reasonably
11
Q
Hussein
A
Mens Rea for 21 USC 841 (Drugs):
- D knew he controlled a specific controlled substance
- D knew he had somethng that was controlled substance but didnt know what it was
