United states v bass

The provision had a racially disparate impact in practice, disenfranchising blacks at least 1.

2001 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

In the instant case, the broad construction urged by the Government renders traditionally local criminal conduct a matter for federal enforcement and would also involve a substantial extension of federal police resources.

Attorneys to file death penalty notices against a higher percentage of white capital-eligible defendants 38 percent than black capital-eligible defendants 25 percent. A federal grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Michigan returned a second superseding indictment charging respondent with, inter alia, the intentional firearm killings of two individuals.

The bill passed the House on August 8,and went to the Senate. In the absence of any relevant evidence of different treatment of similarly situated persons here, Armstrong dictates that respondent was not entitled to discovery.

CR WD Tenn. Officer Ellis proceeded to conduct a protective sweep of the apartment.

2001 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

Rule of Law To access this section, please start your free trial or log in. Nonetheless, we have read Armstrong to require some evidence of the discriminatory intent element as well. You may not, however, convict the accused of a charge or specification solely because you believe he committed another charge or specification or solely because you believe that the accused has a propensity or predisposition to engage in sexual assault.

In contrast, the only federal offense reflected in the sentencing statistics where blacks represented forty-eight percent or more of the total defendants sentenced was robbery blacks: In McCleskey, however, the Supreme Court, sitting in federal habeas review, was addressing whether the defendant had carried his burden of proof on the merits of his selective prosecution claim.

That information, when combined with the defendants included in the initial survey, produced a broader pool of potential capital defendants. Although, under Armstrong, U. When confronted with the casings, Bass told the police that he had shot at the two men as reported by James because they had robbed him earlier in the evening.

It is a classic effort to shift the blame, shift the blame on them, blame the victim. New York, U.


Armstrong In United States v. Bass appealed his conviction. The court of appeals' evisceration of the Armstrong standard in this case presents the government with the dilemma of either accepting the disruption of the frank and orderly prosecutorial decision-making process that will result from the release of voluminous internal decision-making documents or abandoning the pursuit of the death penalty in a case in which that penalty has been authorized by Congress and determined to be appropriate by the Attorney General.

In a court-martial proceeding for a sexual offense, the military judge may admit evidence that the accused committed any other sexual offense. This timely appeal followed. We can find no reported case in which Mil. One Tract of Real Property, 95 F. First, although subsections of the two Titles do address their prohibitions to some of the same people, each statute also reaches substantial groups of people not reached by the other.

Written in plain English, not in legalese. The convening authority CA approved the sentence as adjudged. Proof of one charged offense carries with it no inference that the accused is guilty of any other charged offense.

A Statistical Surveyp. Title IV reaches persons "under indictment for, or. The Court emphasized that a defendant must show that "the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose" in order to show intentional discrimination. On January 10,the court entered an order dismissing the death penalty notice.

United States, U. Respondent was subsequently charged in a third superseding indictment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and more than 50 grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The interstate commerce requirement in Title VII minimally applies to transportation.

Senator Long's explanatory comments reveal clearly the purpose, the intent, and the extent of the legislation:. A summary and case brief of United States v. Bass, including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and dissents. United States v.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. Section Three provides that the Vice President is the President of the gabrielgoulddesign.coming the duty to receive the tally of electoral votes for President, this is the only regular responsibility assigned to the office of the Vice President by the Constitution.

In United States v. Armstrong, U.S.(), we held that a defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. record demonstrates that Bass entered into the plea agreement a nd the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v.

United States, F.3d(8th Cir. Donofrio, F.2d (CA5 ); Stevens v. United States, F.2d (CA6 ) (one judge dissenting); United States v. Synnes, F.2d (CA8 ); United States v.

United States Senate

Daniels, F.2d (CA9 ). The result reached by the Second Circuit in this case has also been reached in United States v. Harbin, gabrielgoulddesign.com 50 (ND Ind.

Article One of the United States Constitution

. In United States v.

United States v. Bass - Petition Appendix

Armstrong, U. S.(), we held that a defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent.

United states v bass
Rated 0/5 based on 39 review
UNITED STATES v. BASS | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute