Search for: "T. O"
Results 5821 - 5840
of 40,469
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Mar 2016, 6:44 am
Id. at *5) (“[T]he fact that an individual is armed does not necessarily mean that he or she has used the weapon in any way. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 11:13 am
That close nexus isn’t always there, however. [read post]
10 Jan 2016, 7:49 am
From this, the gov’t can take an interlocutory appeal? [read post]
13 Jan 2013, 12:44 pm
Of Note: Juan, sadly, didn’t win because he couldn’t show that the perjury threat was actually conveyed to the witness-wife. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 8:33 pm
She reported that the captors threatened to kill her son if they weren’t paid that afternoon. [read post]
21 Feb 2015, 4:47 pm
Both the gov’t and defense counsel argued for 24 months; the defense noted the (favorable) change in the guidelines ranges, the staleness of the heroin prior, and the client’s resolved issues with his children in the US, negating the need to return. [read post]
Case o' The Week: Forfeiture hits a new Lo -- United States v. Henry Lo, Forfeiture, and Restitution
10 Oct 2016, 9:58 am
That notice requirement doesn’t apply, Judge Ikuta explains, to forfeiture orders – a beast authorized by an entirely different statute. [read post]
23 Apr 2016, 9:16 am
(The Ninth, thankfully, doesn't buy it either). [read post]
6 Apr 2019, 11:25 am
Atypically, the witness wasn’t objecting to the admission of this prior-prostitution evidence by Haines. [read post]
16 Apr 2016, 3:42 pm
Plus, look for a bonus holding: reckless assault and battery by dangerous weapon doesn’t count, either! [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 10:55 am
“[T]he prosecution has independent evidence that the defense evidence is as phony as a $3 bill. [read post]
5 May 2013, 2:25 pm
Of course, the new rule doesn’t apply to conspiracy charges, or RICO, or “possession with intent to distribute,” id. at *7, but any win in the drug context is a victory worth trumpeting. [read post]
3 Jul 2016, 8:21 pm
The second is, “the lenders knew precisely what was going on, and didn’t care about what was on the application. [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 8:46 pm
(It was later lowered due to a Rule 35 motion, a fact that doesn’t affect the issues in the appeal. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 7:59 pm
(Didn’t help the government that Seattle PD is under a consent decree for race-based policing issues). [read post]
4 Oct 2020, 3:48 pm
Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, but fair to observe that these rules don’t lead to a particularly obvious result in Herrera. [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 4:28 pm
(“[T]he District Court may not indicate what it might find acceptable or unacceptable in resolving the case. [read post]
30 Sep 2012, 11:25 am
Thus, the venue question wasn’t just taken from the jury by the Ninth – it was decided despite the jury. [read post]
19 Jul 2015, 6:28 pm
Of Note: “But wait,” you ask: “in ’78 didn’t the Ninth hold that a district court ‘correctly instructed the jury’ that ‘an act is done willfully if done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do something the law forbids’ – under the same paragraph of this statute? [read post]
9 Nov 2013, 6:15 pm
Granted, there’s that language in Section 1028A(b)(3) that discourages (er, prohibits) such an offset . . . but that didn’t get much traction in Horob. [read post]
