criminal law

Abouammo v. United States

Issues

Can a criminal defendant be tried in a district where no criminal acts occurred but where the defendant intended the crime to have an effect?

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the Constitution permits prosecution in districts where only effects of criminal conduct occurred or whether criminal prosecutions must occur in locations where the defendant’s actual conduct took place. In this case, the government prosecuted Abouammo, who allegedly falsified documents in order to obstruct a federal investigation, in the Northern District of California even though the conduct he was charged for occurred in the Western District of Washington. Abouammo argues that venue is only proper where an “essential conduct element” occurred, not where the effects of that conduct occurred. The United States argues that venue is proper where the intended effects of a defendant’s conduct took place, especially in inchoate offenses where an express intent element is essential to the crime. The outcome of this case could impact traditional venue protections, forum selection, and prosecutorial discretion.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute’s intent element “contemplates” effects that could occur there.

Ahmad Abouammo began his role as a Media Partnerships Manager for the Middle East and North Africa (“MENA”) region at Twitter in 2013. Ahmad Abouammo v.

Submit for publication
0

affirmative defense

aggravating circumstances

Alleyne v. United States

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.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether this Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), should be overruled.

top

Issue(s)

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?

top

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
Submit for publication

assault

Assault is generally defined as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such a contact.

autopsy

Autopsy, borrowed from the Greek term autopsia – meaning “the act of seeing with one’s own eyes” – means the detailed medical examination and/or dissection of a dead body to determine the cause of death or for any scientific and medical purpose.

Barnes v. Felix

Issues

When analyzing whether a law enforcement officer used excessive force, should courts consider context outside of the narrow time when the officer’s safety was threatened?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether courts should consider context outside of the narrow time when the officer’s safety was threatened when analyzing whether a law enforcement officer used excessive force. The Fifth Circuit applies the “moment of the threat” doctrine when analyzing the reasonableness of the use of deadly force by a police officer. Under the “moment of the threat” doctrine, the court can only consider the instance at which an officer deployed the deadly force in its reasonableness analysis. Barnes argues that the “moment of the threat” doctrine should be rejected because it contravenes precedents established by the Supreme Court and because it raises impossible line-drawing problems. Felix counters that the “moment of the threat” doctrine is consistent with precedent and is a straightforward analysis that does not raise line-drawing issues. The outcome of this case has strong implications for law enforcement and community relations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether courts should apply the "moment of the threat" doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.

On April 28, 2016, Officer Roberto Felix, Jr. shot and killed Ashtian Barnes after a traffic stop. Barnes v. Felix at 2. Before the killing, the Harris County Toll Road Authority provided Felix with a plate number that had outstanding violations.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

battery

Subscribe to criminal law