murder

Delligatti v. United States

Issues

Is attempted murder a crime of violence under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether one can commit attempted murder without using, attempting to use, or threatening to use physical force against another person or their property. If no, attempted murder is a “crime of violence” and can serve as the basis for sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); if yes, it cannot—regardless of whether an individual defendant actually used physical force against another person. Salvatore Delligatti, who was convicted of attempted murder and seeks to challenge the enhancement of his sentence for that offense, argues that attempted murder does not inherently involve the action of using physical force because even completed murder can be committed through inaction. The United States counters that intentionally causing the death of another person, even through inaction, inherently involves the use of whatever physical force causes that other person’s death. The outcome of this case will determine the continued viability of Congress’s four-decade-old mechanism to crack down on gun violence, the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

The federal criminal code provides for heightened minimum sentences when someone uses or possesses a firearm “in relation to any crime of violence.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). That same section defines a “crime of violence” as a felony that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Samia v. United States

Issues

Is a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right violated by allowing into evidence a co-defendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately incriminates the defendant due to the surrounding context?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether admitting a co-defendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context results in a Confrontation Clause violation. Adam Samia was convicted of murder and other criminal charges at a joint trial after the United States introduced as evidence the redacted confession of Samia’s co-defendant that mentioned and described an accomplice. Samia argues that admitting his co-defendant’s confession violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right because the jury likely inferred that he was the unidentified accomplice in his co-defendant’s confession. Samia asserts that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruton v. United States, his co-defendant’s confession should have been excluded. The United States counters that no Sixth Amendment violation occurred, and the co-defendant’s confession was properly admitted because, consistent with Bruton, all references to Samia were redacted and a limiting instruction was given. This case has significant implications for the role of trial judges as gatekeepers, prosecutorial discretion and power, and the scope of protection the Sixth Amendment provides.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether admitting a co-defendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

Adam Samia was employed as a security guard and, in 2011, traveled to the Philippines to work for a company called Echelon Associates. Brief for Petitioner, Adam Samia at 8. Echelon was a front company for the operations of Paul LeRoux, a South African national who ran a global criminal enterprise. Id.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to murder