Actuarial tables (also called life expectancy tables, mortality tables, and life tables) are statistical tools used by companies, scientists, courts, and government agencies to predict the life expectancy of a person by their age, gender, and other factors. The tables most often give life expectancy based by year and gender. For example, the life expectancy for women may be 9.9 years at age 75, 9.5 at age 76, etc.
A jury found Allen Alleyne guilty of robbery under a federal statue, but the jury did not find him guilty of brandishing a weapon during the robbery. A federal criminal statute provides that a judge can raise the mandatory minimum sentence for robbery with a finding that it was more likely than not that the defendant brandished a firearm. Thus, a judge’s finding can raise the mandatory minimum prison sentence even when a jury was unable to come to that same conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court allowed such findings from judges in Harris v. United States. Now, the court will reconsider that position or have the opportunity to further clarify how much sentencing discretion can be given to judges under federal statutes.
Should the Supreme Court overrule Harris v. United States and require that a jury find facts beyond a reasonable doubt in order to enhance a sentence beyond the ordinarily prescribed statutory maximum?
The ancient document rule is one of the methods available to authenticate evidence for trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
In regards to contracts or other documents, authentication means to sign or to execute the document.
Avowal is a declaration made by an attorney during the trial process.
Badgering the witness is an objection that counsel can make during a cross-examination of a witness where opposing counsel becomes hostile or asks argumentative questions.
Business record exception is a statutory exception to the rule against hearsay in Federal and most state courts.
Does a driver in sole possession of a rental car and with the renter’s permission to operate the car, but not included as a driver on the rental agreement, have a reasonable expectation of privacy that is entitled to constitutional protection?
Terrence Byrd was pulled over by a Pennsylvania police officer for violating a state driving law. Eventually, the officer and another police officer discovered that Byrd was driving a rental car but was not a named driver on the rental agreement. Moreover, the officers also discovered that Byrd had a criminal record that included drug, weapon, and assault charges. Ultimately, the officers asked Byrd for permission to search the car, which they assert that Byrd granted, and, the officers found both heroin and illegal body armor in the car. Byrd challenged the stop and search arguing that it was unlawful. The District Court held that the stop and search was lawful. On appeal, the Third Circuit further recognized that the driver of a rental car who is not listed on the rental agreement did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court will likely resolve the Circuit conflict regarding whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists for a driver in sole possession of a rental vehicle that is not listed as a driver on the rental agreement.
The Fourth Amendment protects people from suspicionless searches of places and effects in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Does a driver in sole possession of a rental vehicle reasonably expect privacy in the vehicle where he has the renter’s permission to drive the vehicle but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement?
In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a state police officer pulled petitioner Terrence Byrd over for violating a state driving law. United States v. Byrd at 2. The police officer, eventually accompanied by another officer, found that Byrd was driving a rental car but that Byrd’s name was not on the rental agreement. Id. at 3.
Character evidence is evidence on an individual’s personality traits, propensities, or moral standing.
