SquirePattonBoggs
FEBRUARY 14, 2023
2022), the Sixth Circuit read Borden as requiring a purposeful or knowing mens rea for offenses deemed violent felony predicate offenses. As the Sixth Circuit explained, Patterson “did not consider, as Borden now requires, whether the offense’s force element has a mens rea greater than recklessness.” Butts , 40 F.4th
JURIST
JANUARY 27, 2023
Hilbach , the court considered whether the five- and four-year mandatory minimums for two men convicted of armed robbery with a firearm were constitutional. They also believed that applying the four-year mandatory minimum in Zwozdesky’s hypotheticals would be “grossly disproportionate.”
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
At the Lectern
NOVEMBER 27, 2023
Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th Other parts of the jury’s verdict in this particular case also “do not reflect all of the factual findings necessary to support a murder conviction under current law.” because the aider and abettor has not sufficiently concerned himself with that murder.” Gonzalez (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th
At the Lectern
FEBRUARY 15, 2024
2) Does state law preempt a local ordinance when both prohibit the same conduct and the state law has a mens rea component that the local ordinance does not? The court granted review in March 2022. 2022) 13 Cal.5th More about the case here. Burgos : The case was a grant-and-hold for a death penalty appeal. See Naranjo v.
FDA Law Blog
JUNE 28, 2022
Palmer — On June 27, 2022, in one of the last opinions issued during its current term, a majority of the U.S. Gilbert & Karla L. Supreme Court (six justices) issued a noteworthy opinion on criminal liability related to prescribers of controlled substances. 841) and its implementing regulations (21 C.F.R. United States, No.
FDA Law Blog
NOVEMBER 6, 2022
The Second Circuit’s Interpretation of the AKS and its Mens Rea Element. The Court instead interpreted the term, as used in the AKS, to mean an intentional violation of a known legal duty, but concluded that “the mens rea element goes no further.” 14, 2022 to decide whether to grant certiorari.
Patently O
AUGUST 30, 2022
US , 21-1576 (Supreme Court 2022). Of these, elements 1 and 4 are mens rea elements rather than conduct elements and so the 11th Circuit found them irrelevant to the venue question. by Dennis Crouch. Timothy Smith v. D intended or at least knew that the offense would injure the owner of the trade secret; and. ” U.S.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content