The MIMIC Rule refers to the purposes for which a court will allow the introduction of evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or actions of a defendant. Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 404(b) prohibits the use of such evidence for the purpose of proving a criminal disposition or character.
A mistake of fact is a mistake about a material factual element or mistaken belief other than a mistake of law. Examples include erroneous beliefs about the meaning of a legal term or about the identity of some person.
Oral argument: Oct. 5, 2009
Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Aug. 26, 2008)
In this case, the Supreme Court will consider whether the United States must prove elements of a crime not contained in the relevant criminal statute but included in an erroneous jury instruction if the government failed to object to that instruction at trial. The Court will also consider whether an appellate court may review a statute-of-limitations defense not raised at trial. See Brief for Petitioner, Michael Musacchio at i; Brief for Respondent, United States at i. Michael Musacchio was convicted of conspiracy to access a computer system without authorization. According to the relevant statute, the United States had to demonstrate “Mussachio had agreed to make unauthorized access or exceed authorized access” of a computer system. See United States v. Musacchio, 590 Fed. Appx. 360, 362 (5th Cir. 2014). However, the trial court’s jury instructions stated that the jury must find that Musacchio “intentionally access[ed] a protected computer without authorization and exceed[ed] authorized access.” (emphasis added) See id. at 361. Neither Musacchio nor the United States objected to the instruction. On appeal, Musacchio challenged the sufficiency of the government’s evidence. Musacchio contends that the law-of-the-case doctrine requires the United States to prove the elements of the crime as described in the jury instructions, even when the jury instructions were erroneous and imposed a heightened burden on the government. See Brief for Petitioner, Michael Musacchio, at 19–22. Musacchio also argues that a statue-of-limitations defense not raised at trial is reviewable on appeal. See id. at 37–39; 53. The United States contends that the law-of-the-case doctrine is inapplicable, because the jury instructions were patently erroneous, and the proper statutory elements were stated in the indictment. See Brief for Respondent, United States at 13. The United States further argues that Musacchio waived his statute-of-limitations defense by failing to raise it at trial. See id. at 40–41. The Court’s decision in this case may affect the government’s prosecutorial power, the fairness of trials, and the availability of statute of limitations defenses. See Brief for Petitioner at 19-20; Brief for Respondent at 13, 48-51.
Michael Musacchio was the president of Exel Transportation Services (“ETS”), a transportation brokerage company, until his resignation in 2004. See United States v. Musacchio, 590 Fed. Appx. 360, 360 (5th Cir. 2014). In 2005, Musacchio started Total Transportation Services (“TTS”), and recruited Roy Brown and Michael Kelly, two former ETS employees, to join him at TTS.
Past recollection recorded is an exception to the hearsay rule and is detailed in the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803(5). This rule allows a memorandum or record of an event to be read into evidence if the record:
Does admitting eyewitness identification evidence at trial whenever the identification was made under suggestive circumstances violate due process?
Barion Perry was convicted of theft for attempting to take amplifiers from a car. A nearby woman, Nubia Blandon, identified Perry as the perpetrator. Perry filed a pretrial motion to suppress Blandon’s identification. Perry argues that eyewitness testimony should not be admitted into evidence at trial when it was obtained under suggestive circumstances. The State of New Hampshire contends that improper state action should be required before eyewitness testimony is barred and that due process does not require preliminary judgments on the reliability of evidence before it is admitted at trial. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire upheld the trial court's denial of the motion because there was no evidence of improper state action. The Supreme Court’s decision could affect the conditions under which parties can use eyewitness testimony at trial.
Do the due process protections against unreliable identification evidence apply to all identifications made under suggestive circumstances, as held by the First Circuit Court of Appeals and other federal courts of appeals, or do they apply only when the suggestive circumstances were orchestrated by the police, as held by the New Hampshire Supreme Court and other courts?
At approximately 3:00 a.m.
The authors would like to thank former Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions Frank Wagner for his assistance in editing this preview.
• New York Times, Adam Liptak: 34 Years Later , Supreme Court will Revisit Eyewitness IDs (Aug. 22, 2011)
• St. Louis Today, Maggie Clark: New Doubt Is Cast on Eyewitness Testimony (Sept. 25, 2011)
Preponderance of the evidence is one type of evidentiary standard used in a burden of proof analysis.
Present recollection refreshed is an evidentiary rule that permits a witness to use a writing or other item to restore their memory while testifying.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1), a present sense impression is a statement that describes or explains an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving it or immediately afterward.
Prima facie is Latin for "at first sight,” or “on the face of it.”
