Cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court typically cut a wide swath of relevance and applicability, and a 5-4 Court ruling issued this Monday that addressed mandatory minimum sentencing is certainly no different.
In summary, the Court engaged in a major sentencing reform by overruling a decade-old case it had authored in 2002 and recommitted to what one commentator termed “a straightforward but hard-fought extension of the so-called Apprendi rule.”
In what has been called a “nuanced picture of marijuana enforcement on the state level,” a newly issued report that relies on police records from every state and Washington, D.C., reveals a wealth of data relating to marijuana possession and arrest rates.
The report -- which was released just last week by researchers from the ACLU -- has been termed by the New York Times as “the most comprehensive review of marijuana arrests by race and by county.”
A drug case involving cocaine possession and distribution is revealing for the manner in which it discusses the reasoning employed by an appellate court in a federal criminal appeals case. We summarize for readers the material facts of the case, the issue on appeal and the court’s reasoning that underlies its ruling in the paragraphs below.
The case came to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals from a defendant challenging the criminal sentence imposed upon him by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Although the federal sentencing guideline range for defendant’s cited criminal activity -- one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 400 grams-plus of cocaine -- was 46-57 months, the district court sentenced the defendant to a 66-month prison term.
Given that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has described a case ruled on by the Court earlier this week as "the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades," the matter obviously merits a bit of discussion. Following is a summary of the seminal federal appeals case and its outcome.
Several years ago, a man was arrested on an assault charge in Maryland. As provided for under that state's law, he was compelled to submit DNA following his arrest. Police officers then uploaded that DNA into a national database, where it matched with DNA collected from an unsolved rape case. The suspect was convicted of that crime.
A criminal defense attorney is looking forward to promoting his client's legal rights and defending the Constitution this autumn in a federal appeals case that will be heard by the United States Supreme Court.
The case has universal applicability, from California (where it occurred) to Georgia, given that it centers on the parameters of police conduct. The material facts are presented immediately following.
Although marijuana might continue to be viewed harshly by law enforcement bodies, legislators and courts in Georgia, areas in many other parts of the country are showing signs that reveal a progressively relaxed attitude and tolerance for marijuana possession and use.
A number of reasons underlie what some commentators are regarding as a virtual sea change of public opinion in many pockets of the country. As has been widely reported, of course, both Colorado and Washington states legalized recreational pot use recently, and other states are considering it. Many jurisdictions, too, have enacted laws or have draft bills under review regarding the use of medical marijuana.
Police in South Carolina were following a car on an interstate in 2009 when its driver failed to properly signal a move. They stopped the car, requested and received consent to search the vehicle, and found heroin hidden inside a false compartment. They charged the passenger with heroin possession.
That suspect was subsequently convicted at trial and awaiting sentencing when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in another case that was highly germane to his situation. Simply stated, the Court found that installing a global-positioning (GPS) device on a vehicle equates to a search under the Constitution. That means that questions attach to whether a warrant must precede installation in any given case.
White collar crimes in Georgia and nationally comprise a broad universe of charges, including mortgage and bank fraud, embezzlement, Internet crimes, money laundering, insider trading, Medicare and Medicaid fraud and other business-related activities.
Increasingly, federal criminal charges in this area feature wiretap evidence obtained by government agencies after their securing of a court-approved warrant.
A child pornography case currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit centrally concerns a determination of what constitutes a workable and fair formula for calculating restitution to a victim.
That standard is proving difficult for judges to agree upon in a federal criminal appeals case in which a lower federal court issued an order requiring a man who pleaded guilty to a single count each of possession of child pornography and distribution to pay the victim $5,000.
United States Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) has stepped front and center in national media publications recently with his announcement that he will use all his clout and political capital to help "crush" Chicago's street gangs.
Kirk says that a state and federal crackdown reminiscent of the late 1920s and early 1930s campaign that brought down famed gangster Al Capone is necessary to clean up Chicago's streets. Impliedly, the tactic can be used as a guideline to help fight against drug trafficking and related drug crimes in other cities and states.
Attorney Shein is a contributing author to each of these publications. Click on a publication icon to learn more.
Law Firm of Shein
and Brandenburg
2392 N. Decatur Road
Decatur, GA 30033
Tel: 404-633-3797
866-719-3420
Fax: 404-633-7980
E-Mail Us |
Directions
Bold labels are required.
