DOCSLIB.ORG

Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1959 a Manual for Federal Prosecutors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1959 a Manual for Federal Prosecutors Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1959 A Manual for Federal Prosecutors December 2006 Prepared by the Staff of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 514-3594 Frank J. Marine, Consultant Douglas E. Crow, Principal Deputy Chief Amy Chang Lee, Assistant Chief Robert C. Dalton Merv Hamburg Gregory C.J. Lisa Melissa Marquez-Oliver David J. Stander Catherine M. Weinstock Cover Design by Linda M. Baer PREFACE This manual is intended to assist federal prosecutors in the preparation and litigation of cases involving the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1959. Prosecutors are encouraged to contact the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section (OCRS) early in the preparation of their case for advice and assistance. All pleadings alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959 including any indictment, information, or criminal complaint, and a prosecution memorandum must be submitted to OCRS for review and approval before being filed with the court. The submission should be approved by the prosecutor’s office before being submitted to OCRS. Due to the volume of submissions received by OCRS, prosecutors should submit the proposal three weeks prior to the date final approval is needed. Prosecutors should contact OCRS regarding the status of the proposed submission before finally scheduling arrests or other time-sensitive actions relating to the submission. Moreover, prosecutors should refrain from finalizing any guilty plea agreement containing a Section 1959 charge until final approval has been obtained from OCRS. The policies and procedures set forth in this manual and elsewhere relating to 18 U.S.C. § 1959 are internal Department of Justice policies and guidance only. They are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to, create any right, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Nor are any limitations hereby placed on otherwise lawful litigative prerogatives of the Department of Justice. i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE.................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS. ..................................................... i i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. .................................................. i v I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW. .....................................1 A. Introduction......................................................1 B. Prior Approval by the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section Is Required.........................................................2 1. Approval Authority..........................................2 2. Guidelines for Section 1959 Prosecutions. 3 3. Prosecution Memorandum ....................................4 4. Post-Indictment Duties. ......................................5 C. Legislative History Of Section 1959 and Its Relationship To RICO.. 5 D. Liberal Construction Rule. .........................................7 II. ELEMENTS OF SECTION 1959 OFFENSES.. 7 A. Overview of Elements and Mens Rea..................................7 B. The Existence of An Enterprise.....................................1 0 C. The Enterprise Engaged in, or its Activities Affected, Interstate or Foreign Commerce................................................1 3 D. The Enterprise Engaged in Racketeering Activity. 1 5 E. Generic Offenses - Determining Whether A Particular Statutory Offense Qualifies as A Section 1959 Predicate Offense. 1 8 F. Murder.........................................................2 6 1. The Federal Murder Statute -- 18 U.S.C. § 1111. 2 7 (a) Elements............................................2 8 (b) “Unlawful” killing....................................3 0 (c) Malice Aforethought..................................3 0 (d) Premeditation........................................3 1 ii (e) Felony Murder.......................................3 3 (f) Jurisdiction..........................................3 6 2. Generic Murder............................................3 8 3. Section 1959 Cases Charging Murder. 4 3 G. Kidnapping......................................................4 4 1. Federal Kidnapping Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1201. 4 4 (a) Elements............................................4 8 (b) Kidnapping by force (seizure, confinement, kidnapping, abduction, or carrying away) or seduction (decoying and inveigling)...........................................4 9 (c) Transportation in interstate commerce. 5 0 (d) For “Ransom or Reward or Otherwise” Requirement. 5 1 2. Generic Kidnapping.........................................5 3 3. Section 1959 Cases Charging Kidnapping.. 5 5 H. Maiming........................................................5 6 1. Generic Maiming...........................................5 6 2. Section 1959 Prosecutions Charging Maiming. 6 5 I. Assault With A Dangerous Weapon..................................6 5 1. Federal Definition Under 18 U.S.C. § 113. 6 5 2. Generic Assault With A Dangerous Weapon. 6 7 3. Section 1959 Cases Charging Assault With A Dangerous Weapon. 7 2 J. Assaults Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury. 7 4 1. Federal Definitions Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 113 and 1365. 7 4 2. Generic Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury.. 7 8 3. Section 1959 Cases Charging Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury ....................................................8 0 K. Threats To Commit A Crime of Violence. 8 1 1. Federal Definition of a Crime of Violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16 .............................................8 1 iii a. Section 16(a) – the Use, Attempted Use, or Threatened Use of Physical Force Against the Person or Property of Another . ...........................................8 6 b. Section 16(b) --Felony Offenses Involving a Substantial Risk that Physical Force Against the Person or Property of Another May Be Used...............................8 8 2. Section 1959 Cases Charging a Threat to Commit a Crime of Violence...................................................9 1 L. Attempts and Conspiracies.........................................9 3 M. The Underlying Crimes of Violence Must Be Committed For One of Two Purposes...................................................102 1. Receipt of, or as Consideration for A Promise or Agreement to Pay, Anything of Pecuniary Value From An Enterprise. 102 2. Gaining Entrance to or Maintaining or Increasing Position in an Enterprise................................................104 III. ALTERNATIVE THEORIES OF LIABILITY. 111 A. Aiding and Abetting..............................................111 B. Pinkerton Liability...............................................114 C. Accessory After the Fact..........................................115 IV. MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL ISSUES AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS.. 116 A. Venue..........................................................116 B. Extraterritorial Application of Section 1959.. 119 C. Drafting the Indictment and Related Issues. 123 D. Double Jeopardy and Collateral Estoppel.. 126 1. Double Jeopardy. .........................................126 2. Collateral Estoppel.........................................128 E. Joinder and Severance............................................133 F. Statute of Limitations. ...........................................134 G. Sentencing and Punishment in Non-Capital Cases.. 135 1. Murder and Kidnapping....................................135 2. Maiming.................................................136 3. Assault Offenses...........................................136 iv 4. Threats to Commit A Crime of Violence. 137 5. Attempts or Conspiracies to Commit Murder or Kidnapping. 137 6. Attempts or Conspiracies to Commit Maiming or Assault Offenses..................................................138 H. Jury Instructions................................................138 I. Admission of Uncharged Crimes...................................139 J. Constitutional Challenges.........................................140 1. Vagueness Challenges......................................140 2. Ex Post Facto Challenges. ..................................142 3. Tenth Amendment Challenges...............................142 APPENDIX A - Excerpts of Senate Report No. 98-225, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. pp. 1-2, 304- 314, 322-323. APPENDIX B - United States Attorneys’ Manual Sections 9-110.010 to 9-110.8161 APPENDIX C - State Assault Statutes APPENDIX D - Model Section 1959 Indictments v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES SUPREME COURT CASES PAGE Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959)............................................................... 128 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). ............................................................. 136 Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970). ................................................................ 128, 129 Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959). ....................................................................... 128 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). ..................................................... 127 Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985).......................................................................... 128 Chatwin v. United States, 326 U.S. 455 (1946)............................................................... 4 9 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990). ........................................................... 129 EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991)........................................... 119 Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)....................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gills Coulee Creek, 2006 [PDF]
    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Watershed Management Sediment TMDL for Gills Coulee Creek INTRODUCTION Gills Coulee Creek is a tributary stream to the La Crosse River, located in La Crosse County in west central Wisconsin. (Figure A-1) The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) placed the entire length of Gills Coulee Creek on the state’s 303(d) impaired waters list as low priority due to degraded habitat caused by excessive sedimentation. The Clean Water Act and US EPA regulations require that each state develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for waters on the Section 303(d) list. The purpose of this TMDL is to identify load allocations and management actions that will help restore the biological integrity of the stream. Waterbody TMDL Impaired Existing Codified Pollutant Impairment Priority WBIC Name ID Stream Miles Use Use Gills Coulee 0-1 Cold II Degraded 1652300 168 WWFF Sediment High Creek 1-5 Cold III Habitat Table 1. Gills Coulee use designations, pollutants, and impairments PROBLEM STATEMENT Due to excessive sedimentation, Gills Coulee Creek is currently not meeting applicable narrative water quality criterion as defined in NR 102.04 (1); Wisconsin Administrative Code: “To preserve and enhance the quality of waters, standards are established to govern water management decisions. Practices attributable to municipal, industrial, commercial, domestic, agricultural, land development, or other activities shall be controlled so that all waters including mixing zone and effluent channels meet the following conditions at all times and under all flow conditions: (a) Substances that will cause objectionable deposits on the shore or in the bed of a body of water, shall not be present in such amounts as to interfere with public rights in waters of the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Charging Language
    1. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abduction ................................................................................................73 By Relative.........................................................................................415-420 See Kidnapping Abuse, Animal ...............................................................................................358-362,365-368 Abuse, Child ................................................................................................74-77 Abuse, Vulnerable Adult ...............................................................................78,79 Accessory After The Fact ..............................................................................38 Adultery ................................................................................................357 Aircraft Explosive............................................................................................455 Alcohol AWOL Machine.................................................................................19,20 Retail/Retail Dealer ............................................................................14-18 Tax ................................................................................................20-21 Intoxicated – Endanger ......................................................................19 Disturbance .......................................................................................19 Drinking – Prohibited Places .............................................................17-20 Minors – Citation Only
    [Show full text]
  • Identity Theft Literature Review
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Identity Theft Literature Review Author(s): Graeme R. Newman, Megan M. McNally Document No.: 210459 Date Received: July 2005 Award Number: 2005-TO-008 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. IDENTITY THEFT LITERATURE REVIEW Prepared for presentation and discussion at the National Institute of Justice Focus Group Meeting to develop a research agenda to identify the most effective avenues of research that will impact on prevention, harm reduction and enforcement January 27-28, 2005 Graeme R. Newman School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany Megan M. McNally School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, Newark This project was supported by Contract #2005-TO-008 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • YALE ARCHITECTURE FALL 2011 Constructs Yale Architecture
    1 CONSTRUCTS YALE ARCHITECTURE FALL 2011 Constructs Yale Architecture Fall 2011 Contents “Permanent Change” symposium review by Brennan Buck 2 David Chipperfield in Conversation Anne Tyng: Inhabiting Geometry 4 Grafton Architecture: Shelley McNamara exhibition review by Alicia Imperiale and Yvonne Farrell in Conversation New Users Group at Yale by David 6 Agents of Change: Geoff Shearcroft and Sadighian and Daniel Bozhkov Daisy Froud in Conversation Machu Picchu Artifacts 7 Kevin Roche: Architecture as 18 Book Reviews: Environment exhibition review by No More Play review by Andrew Lyon Nicholas Adams Architecture in Uniform review by 8 “Thinking Big” symposium review by Jennifer Leung Jacob Reidel Neo-avant-garde and Postmodern 10 “Middle Ground/Middle East: Religious review by Enrique Ramirez Sites in Urban Contexts” symposium Pride in Modesty review by Britt Eversole review by Erene Rafik Morcos 20 Spring 2011 Lectures 11 Commentaries by Karla Britton and 22 Spring 2011 Advanced Studios Michael J. Crosbie 23 Yale School of Architecture Books 12 Yale’s MED Symposium and Fab Lab 24 Faculty News 13 Fall 2011 Exhibitions: Yale Urban Ecology and Design Lab Ceci n’est pas une reverie: In Praise of the Obsolete by Olympia Kazi The Architecture of Stanley Tigerman 26 Alumni News Gwathmey Siegel: Inspiration and New York Dozen review by John Hill Transformation See Yourself Sensing by Madeline 16 In The Field: Schwartzman Jugaad Urbanism exhibition review by Tributes to Douglas Garofalo by Stanley Cynthia Barton Tigerman and Ed Mitchell 2 CONSTRUCTS YALE ARCHITECTURE FALL 2011 David Chipperfield David Chipperfield Architects, Neues Museum, façade, Berlin, Germany 1997–2009.
    [Show full text]
  • October 2012 Highlights Documentaries
    OCTOBER 2012 HIGHLIGHTS ** Denotes programs with artwork available on Investigation Discovery’s Press Website All Times ET // All airdates are subject to change INVESTIGATION DISCOVERY PRESS CONTACTS: Jordyn Linsk Charlotte Bigford Publicist Publicist 240-662-2421, [email protected] 240-662-3125, [email protected] DOCUMENTARIES ID FILMS: TELLING AMY’S STORY ** TV-PG (V) One-Hour Documentary Premieres Monday, October 8 at 7 PM ET By laying bare one woman's story and the many opportunities to alter its outcome, this October, Investigation Discovery commemorates Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the hope of educating, empowering, and even saving lives. On November 8, 2001, Amy Homan McGee was killed by her abusive husband of four years while her children waited outside in the car. Hosted by actress and advocate Mariska Hargitay, and told by Detective Deirdri Fishel, TELLING AMY’S STORY follows the timeline of the tragic domestic violence homicide that occurred in central Pennsylvania. The victim’s parents and co-workers, law enforcement officers, and court personnel share their perspectives on what happened to Amy in the weeks, months, and years leading up to her death. ID FILMS: WERNER HERZOG'S INTO THE ABYSS: A TALE OF LIFE, A TALE OF DEATH ** TV-14 Feature-Length Documentary Makes Its World TV Premiere on Tuesday, October 23 at 8 PM ET Werner Herzog’s INTO THE ABYSS debuted in September 2011 to rave reviews and festival buzz from Telluride to Toronto. Exploring the intricate details and emotional aftermath of a triple homicide in Conroe, Texas, Herzog sought to better understand the impact of life in prison and the shattering effects of the death penalty.
    [Show full text]
  • Casenotes: Criminal Law—Homicide—Felony-Murder—Felon Is
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 9 Article 9 Issue 3 Spring 1980 1980 Casenotes: Criminal Law — Homicide — Felony- Murder — Felon Is Culpable for Murder in the First Degree under Maryland's Felony-Murder Statute When Police Officer Kills Kidnapped Hostage Used by Felon as Human Shield. Jackson v. State, 286 Md. 430, 408 A.2d 711 (1979) John A. Roberts University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Roberts, John A. (1980) "Casenotes: Criminal Law — Homicide — Felony-Murder — Felon Is Culpable for Murder in the First Degree under Maryland's Felony-Murder Statute When Police Officer Kills Kidnapped Hostage Used by Felon as Human Shield. Jackson v. State, 286 Md. 430, 408 A.2d 711 (1979)," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 9: Iss. 3, Article 9. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol9/iss3/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CRIMINAL LAW - HOMICIDE - FELONY-MURDER - FELON IS CULPABLE FOR MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE UNDER MARYLAND'S FELONY-MURDER STATUTE WHEN POLICE OFFICER KILLS KIDNAPPED HOSTAGE USED BY FELON AS HUMAN SHIELD. JACKSON v. STATE, 286 Md. 430, 408 A.2d 711 (1979). At common law, when one commits homicide while perpetrating a felony, the felony-murder rule raises that homicide to murder.' In Maryland, when a person commits murder in the perpetration of one or more statutorily-enumerated felonies, that murder is in the first degree under the state's felony-murder statute.2 Maryland courts have readily applied this statute when the felon has struck the fatal blow.' Recently, in Jackson v.
    [Show full text]
  • Competing Theories of Blackmail: an Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory
    Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory Paul H. Robinson,* Michael T. Cahill** & Daniel M. Bartels*** The crime of blackmail has risen to national media attention because of the David Letterman case, but this wonderfully curious offense has long been the favorite of clever criminal law theorists. It criminalizes the threat to do something that would not be criminal if one did it. There exists a rich liter- ature on the issue, with many prominent legal scholars offering their accounts. Each theorist has his own explanation as to why the blackmail offense exists. Most theories seek to justify the position that blackmail is a moral wrong and claim to offer an account that reflects widely shared moral intuitions. But the theories make widely varying assertions about what those shared intuitions are, while also lacking any evidence to support the assertions. This Article summarizes the results of an empirical study designed to test the competing theories of blackmail to see which best accords with pre- vailing sentiment. Using a variety of scenarios designed to isolate and test the various criteria different theorists have put forth as “the” key to blackmail, this study reveals which (if any) of the various theories of blackmail proposed to date truly reflects laypeople’s moral judgment. Blackmail is not only a common subject of scholarly theorizing but also a common object of criminal prohibition. Every American jurisdiction criminalizes blackmail, although there is considerable variation in its formulation. The Article reviews the American statutes and describes the three general approaches these provisions reflect.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy
    California Law Review VOL. 61 SEPTEMBER 1973 No. 5 The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy Phillip E. Johnson* The literature on the subject of criminal conspiracy reflects a sort of rough consensus. Conspiracy, it is generally said, is a necessary doctrine in some respects, but also one that is overbroad and invites abuse. Conspiracy has been thought to be necessary for one or both of two reasons. First, it is said that a separate offense of conspiracy is useful to supplement the generally restrictive law of attempts. Plot- ters who are arrested before they can carry out their dangerous schemes may be convicted of conspiracy even though they did not go far enough towards completion of their criminal plan to be guilty of attempt.' Second, conspiracy is said to be a vital legal weapon in the prosecu- tion of "organized crime," however defined.' As Mr. Justice Jackson put it, "the basic conspiracy principle has some place in modem crimi- nal law, because to unite, back of a criniinal purpose, the strength, op- Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley. A.B., Harvard Uni- versity, 1961; J.D., University of Chicago, 1965. 1. The most cogent statement of this point is in Note, 14 U. OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW REv. 56, 61-62 (1956): "Since we are fettered by an unrealistic law of criminal attempts, overbalanced in favour of external acts, awaiting the lit match or the cocked and aimed pistol, the law of criminal conspiracy has been em- ployed to fill the gap." See also MODEL PENAL CODE § 5.03, Comment at 96-97 (Tent.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kansas Judiciary
    2018 Kansas Directory The Kansas Judiciary Kansas Judicial Center 301 S.W. 10th Ave., Topeka 66612-1507 785-296-3229 www.kscourts.org Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice: Lawton R. Nuss Justices: Carol A. Beier, Dan Biles, Lee A. Johnson, Marla J. Luckert, Eric S. Rosen, Caleb Stegall The Kansas Supreme Court is the highest court in Kansas. It consists of seven justices, each of whom is selected by the governor from a list of three qualified individuals submitted by the Supreme Court Nominating Commission. After the first year in office, a justice is subject to a retention vote in the next general election. If a majority of electors votes to retain the justice, he or she remains in office for a term of six years. Justices are subject to a similar retention vote at the conclusion of each term. The justice who is senior in terms of continuous service is designated by the Kansas Constitution as the chief justice, unless he or she declines or resigns the position. The chief justice has general ad- ministrative supervision over the affairs of the court and of the unified judicial department of the state. Kansas Court of Appeals Chief Judge: Karen Arnold-Burger Judges: G. Gordon Atcheson, David E. Bruns, Michael B. Buser, Kathryn A. Gardner, Henry W. Green Jr., Stephen D. Hill, Steve A. Leben, Patrick D. McAnany, Thomas E. Malone, G. Joseph Pierron Jr., Anthony J. Powell, Kim R. Schroeder, Melissa Taylor Standridge The Kansas Court of Appeals consists of 14 judges. Candidates for appointment to the court of appeals apply to and are selected by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleistocene Drainage Changes in Uncompahgre Plateau-Grand
    New Mexico Geological Society Downloaded from: http://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/32 Pleistocene drainage changes in Uncompahgre Plateau-Grand Valley region of western Colorado, including formation and abandonment of Unaweep Canyon: a hypothesis Scott Sinnock, 1981, pp. 127-136 in: Western Slope (Western Colorado), Epis, R. C.; Callender, J. F.; [eds.], New Mexico Geological Society 32nd Annual Fall Field Conference Guidebook, 337 p. This is one of many related papers that were included in the 1981 NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebook. Annual NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebooks Every fall since 1950, the New Mexico Geological Society (NMGS) has held an annual Fall Field Conference that explores some region of New Mexico (or surrounding states). Always well attended, these conferences provide a guidebook to participants. Besides detailed road logs, the guidebooks contain many well written, edited, and peer-reviewed geoscience papers. These books have set the national standard for geologic guidebooks and are an essential geologic reference for anyone working in or around New Mexico. Free Downloads NMGS has decided to make peer-reviewed papers from our Fall Field Conference guidebooks available for free download. Non-members will have access to guidebook papers two years after publication. Members have access to all papers. This is in keeping with our mission of promoting interest, research, and cooperation regarding geology in New Mexico. However, guidebook sales represent a significant proportion of our operating budget. Therefore, only research papers are available for download. Road logs, mini-papers, maps, stratigraphic charts, and other selected content are available only in the printed guidebooks. Copyright Information Publications of the New Mexico Geological Society, printed and electronic, are protected by the copyright laws of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Mandatory Minimum Penalties and Statutory Relief Mechanisms
    Chapter 2 HISTORY OF MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES AND STATUTORY RELIEF MECHANISMS A. INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a detailed historical account of the development and evolution of federal mandatory minimum penalties. It then describes the development of the two statutory mechanisms for obtaining relief from mandatory minimum penalties. B. MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC Congress has used mandatory minimum penalties since it enacted the first federal penal laws in the late 18th century. Mandatory minimum penalties have always been prescribed for a core set of serious offenses, such as murder and treason, and also have been enacted to address immediate problems and exigencies. The Constitution authorizes Congress to establish criminal offenses and to set the punishments for those offenses,17 but there were no federal crimes when the First Congress convened in New York in March 1789.18 Congress created the first comprehensive series of federal offenses with the passage of the 1790 Crimes Act, which specified 23 federal crimes.19 Seven of the offenses in the 1790 Crimes Act carried a mandatory death penalty: treason, murder, three offenses relating to piracy, forgery of a public security of the United States, and the rescue of a person convicted of a capital crime.20 One of the piracy offenses specified four different forms of criminal conduct, arguably increasing to 10 the number of offenses carrying a mandatory minimum penalty.21 Treason, 17 See U.S. Const. art. I, §8 (enumerating powers to “provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States” and to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations”); U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellate Practice Handbook
    KANSAS APPELLATE PRACTICE HANDBOOK 6TH EDITION KANSAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL Subscription Information The Kansas Appellate Practice Handbook is updated on a periodic basis with supplements to reflect important changes in both statutory law and case law. Your purchase of this publication automatically records your subscription for the update service. If you do not wish to receive the supplements, you must inform the Judicial Council. You may contact the Judicial Council by e-mail at [email protected], by telephone at (785) 296-2498 or by mail at: Kansas Judicial Council 301 SW 10th, Ste. 140 Topeka, KS 66612 © 2019 KANSAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION This is the first edition of the Handbook since the advent of electronic filing of appellate cases. All prior editions, while containing some useful suggestions, are obsolete. With clear marching orders from our Supreme Court, all appellate attorneys must enroll and monitor their cases. Paper filing is now relegated to litigants that are unrepresented. Prompted by these massive changes we have consolidated some chapters and subjects and created new sections for electronic filing. But there is more to an appeal than just getting in the door. Scheduling, briefing, and pre- and post-opinion motion practice are dealt with. We sincerely hope that this work will be helpful to all who practice in this important area of the law. It is an attempt to open up the mysteries of electronic filing of appellate cases in Kansas. I must shout from the rooftops my praise for Christy Molzen with the Kansas Judicial Council, who has done all of the heavy lifting in putting this handbook together.
    [Show full text]