Term
|
Definition
| Congress cannot regulate gun control in schools - it's not an economic activity - can only regulate 1) channels of IC, 2) instrumentalities of IC, 3) activities that substantially affect IC |
|
|
Term
| 18 U.S.C. 1951 - Hobbs Act |
|
Definition
| Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Robberies in local retail stores where some of the merchandise originated outside of TX - de minimis impact is sufficient to fall under the Hobbs Act when viewed in the aggregate - only need POTENTIAL act on IC, not actual effect, to trigger Hobbs Act |
|
|
Term
| How can you prosecute under both state and federal law without violating double jeopardy? |
|
Definition
| Bartkus v. Illinois, Abbate v. US - successive prosecution isn't a violation under 14th or 5th because every citizen owes allegiance to TWO independent sovereigns; Blockburger test - not a violation if each offense has an element not contained in the other |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Feds can prosecute after the state does if
1) substantial federal interests (Rodney King)
2) prior prosecution left interest demonstrably unvindicated
3) gov't must believe conduct was a FEDERAL offense and that admissible evidence led to a conviction
*D CANNOT raise a claim that policy was violated |
|
|
Term
| How do cases become federal? |
|
Definition
1) Usually depends where case ends up
2) Depends who has custody of suspect
3) Whether prosecution is duplicative (whether someone other than law enforcement is already dealing with it)
4) Whether there's state/fed collaboration
5) "Big case" factor - could springboard to political career, way to get $, resources, etc.
6) Caseloads/resources
7) Inter-agency relationships
8) Legal advantage and policies |
|
|
Term
| Doctrines of Fed Criminal Procedure |
|
Definition
a) Merger (when one offense merges into another)
b) Duplicity (charging 2 offenses in the same count of an indictment)
c) Multiplicity (taking same crime and repeating it count after count - but must have separate elements to do this) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If state possesses exculpatory evidence, it has a constitutional duty - upon request by D - to turn it over
*It's D's responsibility to identify what he thinks is exculpatory evidence |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1) An agreement by 2+ people to do something illegal
2) Most commonly charged fed crime
3) Punished as though act has been completed even if it hasn't
4) Some statutes, like RICO, have conspiracy built into them
5) Can be tried anywhere it was entered into or an overt act was done in furtherance |
|
|
Term
| 18 U.S.C. 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the U.S. |
|
Definition
ELEMENTS:
a) 2+ persons conspire - must have some sort of agreement - can be implied - no conspiracy if w/ gov't agent
b) To commit offense against US, OR (must have conspired to commit separate fed crime, need at least 2 crimes total - cannot charge conspiracy on its own)
c) Defraud the US, or any agency thereof (rarely prosecuted under this prong)
c. Do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy - overt act (doesn't need to be criminal, but MUST be in furtherance of the conspiracy)
*DO NOT need to have committed an overt act to be brought into the conspiracy |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| If requested, the prosecutor must constitutionally disclose any deal made with a witness |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| To be charged with conspiracy, merely need to know the object of it - don't need to know the full extent |
|
|
Term
| Is conspiracy a free-standing offense? |
|
Definition
| NO - you must have at least 2 crimes total - person being charged must have committed a separate federal crime |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
LINK - series of people conspiring, not necessarily all linked to each other
WHEEL - like link, but gets rejoined - comes full-circle
SPOKE/HUB - one person in the middle distributing to outside individuals |
|
|
Term
| Why is conspiracy a powerful weapon? |
|
Definition
-Can use circumstantial evidence to prove it
-Gov't can introduce hearsay testimony - 801(d)(2)(e) - statement isn't hearsay if it's made by a coconspirator of a party during the course of, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| CAN be held liable for the substantive offenses of your co-conspirators - e.g., you get arrested for drugs (10 yrs) and have a gun on you (5 yrs), your co-conspirator can get 15 yrs even if he had neither on his person |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1) Must be done in furtherance of the conspiracy
2) Needs to be done within its scope
3) Needs to be reasonably foreseeable or a natural consequence of the unlawful agreement (e.g., murder in a drug conspiracy) |
|
|
Term
| When does the SoL start running on conspiracy? |
|
Definition
1) When the objective is achieved, OR
2) When conspiracy no longer exists - being arrested isn't enough - must be affirmative defeat of its purposes, like making a full confession, etc.
-SoL CANNOT run until it's completed, even if SoL for the other crimes committed pursuant to it has run |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-Gov't seized truck full of drugs - Ds still showed up to get it, and were charged with conspiracy
-Conspiracy doesn't automatically end when the object of the conspiracy becomes impossible to achieve
POLICY: Essence of conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act - poses threat to public that it'll happen again - danger is still there even if police thwart first plan |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Fraud by wire, radio or television - elements:
Whoever,
having devised or intending to devise (ACTUS REUS and MENS REA) a scheme or artifice to defraud, OR obtaining $ fraudulently, for the purpose of executing the scheme or trying to do so, transmits or causes to be transmitted in IC [fed jurisdiction element] |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Frauds and swindles
-Same as wire fraud, except postal power and IC are the jurisdictional element
-Having devised or intending to devise scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Pre-McNally: someone somewhere is being deprived of honest services, from whom they have a right to expect it - prosecute under mail fraud
McNally: Deprivation of honest services NOT within mail fraud - property does NOT include honest services |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Skilling v. US - honest services fraud ONLY includes bribes and kickback schemes |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
D was lawyer and Congressman in AK who solicited future legal work from an oil field company in exchange for voting on pro-oil laws - based on possibility of future employment
-State law violation isn't required to prosecute under honest services fraud statute |
|
|
Term
| Intangible rights doctrine |
|
Definition
| Prosecutions from circuits that extend mail fraud statute to cases in which victims were deprived of some intangible right or interest, not just $ or property |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Mail doesn't have to be an ESSENTIAL part of the scheme, sufficient to be incidental - statute violated when retail dealers re-sold cars and effected transfers of title through the mail |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Hobbs Act - Interference with commerce by threats or violence
a) Robbery by force
Taking of another's property w/o his consent
b) Extortion by force
Wrongful use of force/threat/fear to obtain recognized property right from another person w/ their consent
c) Extortion under color of official right
Done by public officials - when they get money to which they're not entitled, knowing it was made in exchange for official acts |
|
|
Term
| Prosecution: 18 U.S.C. 1951 versus 18 U.S.C. 201 |
|
Definition
1951: not limited to fed public officials; gov't only needs to prove they agreed on some official action in exchange for payment
201: gov't MUST prove an express quid pro quo or something close to it - both briber and bribee have committed a federal crime |
|
|
Term
| Depletion of assets theory |
|
Definition
-Used to prove jurisdictional element of Hobbs Act
-IC is affected when an enterprise, either actively engaged in IC or customarily purchases items in IC, has its assets depleted through extortion, which curtails the victim's potential to purchase such goods
-Depletion of BUSINESS assets is sufficient to show effect on IC - depletion of an individual's is not |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a) Can you aggregate the conduct to get the impact on IC? (e.g., add 3 robberies together to get impact - courts have been unclear)
b) Can you include an illegal business? (YES - doesn't have to be legal commerce - could be drug dealer's house broken into)
c) Do you have to have an ACTUAL effect on commerce? (NO - just attempt or conspire to) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property by means of actual/threatened force of violence - W/O consent
-Extortion is obtaining of property from another WITH his consent induced by wrongful use of force/violence/fear |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-La. governor was extorting applicants for gambling boat licenses - would only give the licenses to those who paid cash bribes
-Harm must be a particular economic loss, not just the loss of a potential benefit
-Extortion by wrongful use of fear INCLUDES fear of economic harm |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Extortion if the DEPRIVATION of fair or expected treatment, the status quo, or loss of an opportunity to which the parties were legally ENTITLED
-Bribery if it's being deprived of PREFERENTIAL treatment (U.S. v. Tomblin - bankers who fraudulently got interest in S&L feared losing the interest) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Anti-abortion protesters not found guilty of violating Hobbs Act - they didn't acquire property, even though they interrupted Ps from their ability to exercise their property rights, thus no extortion |
|
|
Term
| "Under color of official right" |
|
Definition
| Acceptance of benefit by a public official violates Hobbs Act if official KNOWS he's being offered it in exchange to exercise his official power, EVEN IF HE NEVER EXERCISES SUCH POWER |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Campaign contribution that leads to judge granting in one's favor on a motion, etc. is a violation of Hobbs Act
-You don't have to actually have the power to do something, just need victim to think you do |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-Don't have to intend to obstruct commerce
-Just must intend to commit acts in general (even if intent is not to affect IC) |
|
|
