DOCSLIB.ORG

Aiding and Abetting Law and the Rule of Accomplice Liability Under § 924©

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aiding and Abetting Law and the Rule of Accomplice Liability Under § 924© Michigan Law Review Volume 96 Issue 3 1997 A Question of Intent: Aiding and Abetting Law and the Rule of Accomplice Liability Under § 924© Tyler B. Robinson University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Tyler B. Robinson, A Question of Intent: Aiding and Abetting Law and the Rule of Accomplice Liability Under § 924©, 96 MICH. L. REV. 783 (1997). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol96/iss3/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Question of Intent: Aiding and Abetting Law and the Rule of Accomplice Liability Under § 924(c) Tyler B. Robinson Firearms are common tools of the violent-crime and drug­ trafficking trades. Their prevalence is reflected in the frequency with which federal prosecutors charge, juries apply, and courts re­ view 18 U.S.C. §924(c).1 That provision imposes heavy penalties for either the use or carrying of a firearm "during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime," in addition to the punishment provided for the underlying violent or drug-related of­ fense.2 A conviction under section 924(c) carries at the very least a mandatory, consecutive five-year sentence, even when the underly­ ing crime already provides enhanced punishment for use of a dan­ gerous weapon during its commission.3 The sentence increases to twenty years for a second or subsequent conviction, and further in- 1. A quick Westlaw search reveals more than 800 cases involving 18 U.S.C.§ 924(c) in the federal courts during 1996 alone. Search of Westlaw, Allfeds Database (Oct. 12, 1997). During 1995, moreover, 30% of all reported murder, robbery, and aggravated assault of­ fenses collectively involved the use of firearms.See Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation Press Release (Oct.13, 1996) <http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr95prs.htm>. 2. 18 U.S.C.§ 924(c)(l) (1994). Section 924(c)'s drug trafficking prong covers any felony punishable under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904 (1994), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, 21 U.S.C.§§ 951-71 (1994), or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. app.§§ 1901-04 (1994). See 18 U. S.C.§ 924(c)(2). The statute's crime-of-violence prong reaches any predicate felony that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or ... that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense. " 18 U.S.C.§ 924(c)(3). 3. See 18 U.S.C.§ 924(c)(l). For example, a five-year term of imprisonment under § 924(c) may be added to a sentence under 18 U.S.C.§ 2113 for armed bank robbery, even though§ 2113(d) already enhances the sentence for bank robbery from a 20-year to a 25-year maximum ifthe defendant "puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device." 18 U.S.C.§ 2113(d) (1994). At least one district court has concluded that a consecutive§ 924(c) sentence on top of a sentence enhancement provided by the pred­ icate statute constitutes double jeopardy - punishment twice for the same offense- unless the elements of a§ 924(c) violation encompass a different set of actions than do the elements of a § 2113(d) violation. See United States v. Foreman, 914 F. Supp. 385, 387 (C.D. Cal. 1996). The Supreme Court has firmly established, however, that if there is clear legislative intent to impose two separate, cumulative punishments for the same conduct, there is no double jeopardy violation. See Missouri v.Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368-69 (1983). Congress expressly provided such intent with respect to§ 924(c) following two Supreme Court decisions, handed down in 1978 and 1980, that held§ 924(c) inapplicable to cases in which the predicate felony statute contained its own sentence enhancement provision forthe use of a dangerous weapon. See Busic v.United States, 446 U.S. 398 (1980); Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6 (1978). In 1984 Congress responded by expressly amending the language of§ 924(c) to ensure that all persons who commit Federal crimes of violence, including those crimes set forth in statutes which already provide for enhanced sentences for their commission 783 784 Mi chigan Law Re vie w [Vol. 96:783 creases in specified increments - to a maximum of thirty years for a first offense and life without parole for a subsequent conviction - depending on the type of firearm employed, and on whether the firearm is equipped with a silencer or muffler.4 Accordingly, sec­ tion 924(c) draws a broad range of underlying criminal activity within the scope of additional mandatory penalties whenever a fire­ arm is involved. The breadth and severity of section 924(c)'s application to vio­ lent and drug-related crimes makes it all the more important that an adequate check be placed on the statue's application to accom­ plices to the predicate offense.Federal courts have failed, however, to elucidate a clear or consistent rule of accomplice liability under section 924(c). Under 18 U.S.C. § 2 anyone who "aids, abets, coun­ sels, commands, induces or procures" the commission of a federal offense is punishable as if he had committed the crime himself.5 Judge Learned Hand provided in United States v. Peoni6 what has become the definitive rule for accomplice liability under this stat­ ute: a defendant must "associate himself'' with the criminal venture of the principal, and "participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek[s] by his action to make ... succeed."7 Although courts addressing accomplice liability under section 924(c) consistently recite Judge Hand's formulation of section 2 in Peoni,8 they do so reflexively, echoing the language of the rule with insufficient attention to the theoretical rationale behind it. The Peoni rule has thus become disconnected, body from spirit, as courts have relied on the same statement of the rule to articulate two divergent standards for determining when a defendant is an ac­ complice to a principal's use or carrying of a firearm during a via- with a dangerous weapon, receive a mandatory sentence, without the possibility of the sentence being made to run concurrently with that for the underlying offense. S. REP. No. 98-225, at 313 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3491. Thus, there is no double jeopardy conflictwhen § 924(c) imposes an additional consecutive sentence for the same conduct that is already punished under the predicate statute. See, e.g., United States v. Bishop, 66 F.3d 569, 573-75 {3d Cir. 1995); United States v. Centeno-Torres, 50F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 1995). 4. See 18 U.S.C. § 924{c)(1). 5. 18 u.s.c. § 2 {1994). 6. 100 F.2d 401 {2d Cir. 1938). 7. 100 F.2d at 402; see also United States v. Ledezma, 26 F.3d 636, 641 {6th Cir. 1994) (citingPeoni and noting that all federal circuits have adopted Judge Hand's interpretation of § 2). 8. See, e. g. , United States v. Delpit, 94F.3d 1134, 1150-51 {8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Cruz-Paulino, 61 F.3d 986, 998 {1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Lowery, 60F.3d 1199, 1202 (6th Cir. 1995); United States v. Ortega, 44F.3d 505, 507 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Monroe, 990 F.2d 1370, 1373 {D.C. Cir. 1993); United States v. Langston, 970 F.2d 692, 705 {10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Horton, 921F.2d 540, 543 {4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Smith, 832F.2d 1167, 1170 {9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Reicherter, 647F.2d 397, 401 {3d Cir. 1981); United States v. Alvarez, 610 F.2d 1250, 1253 {5th Cir. 1980); see also United States v. Medina, 32F.3d 40, 45 (2d Cir. 1994) (citing, but not reciting, Peom). December 1997] Note -'- Accomplice Liability 785 lent or drug-trafficking crime. Both standards require that in the course of the predicate offense - the crime of violence or drug trafficking during which the principal uses or carries a :firearm - the accomplice must know that the principal is armed.9 Because the language of section 924(c) does not provide for a specific mens rea element, courts infer that knowledge of the facts constituting the offense establishes the required level of culpability.10 As knowledge constitutes the requisite criminal intent of the principal violator of section 924(c), knowledge must also be established on the part of the accomplice, the logic being that in order for the lat­ ter to merit the same level of punishment as the former, he must share the same level of culpability.11 The two standards diverge, however, in the level of participation necessary to support an inference that the defendant, in the Ian- 9. Knowledge can only be inferred through circumstantial evidence, for it is impossible to prove directly what was subjectively in the mind of the defendant.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Implied Consent Refusal Impact
    L1 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration * DOT HS 807 765 September 1991 Final Report Implied Consent Refusal Impact This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. * t The United States Government does not endorse products or manufactures. Trade or manufacturer's names appear only because they are considered essential to the object of this report. 0 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accessiar No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT HS 807 765 4. Title end Subtitle S. Report Date September 1991 Implied Consent Refusal Impact 6. Per(onting Orgonization Code .t 0. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Author's) Ralph K. Jones, Hans C. Joksch, Connie H. Wiliszowski 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Mid-America Research Institute , Inc . 11. Contract or Grant No. Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 DTNH22-89-C-07008 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Nose and Address Final Report U.S. Department of Transportation May 1989 - July 1991 National H i ghway Traffic Safety Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.C. 20590 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Examines the extent to which persons suspected of DWI refuse to take a chemical test as required by law. Describes implied consent laws in 50 states, analyzes the relation of law features to refusal rate, and analyzes the characteristics of test refusers in four states. Concludes that there is a potential test-refusal problem in the U.S. to the extent that 2% to 71% of drivers arrested for DWI in 1987 refused to take a chemical test.
    [Show full text]
  • Liability of Financial Institutions for Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Laws Sally Totten Gilmore
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 42 | Issue 3 Article 4 Summer 6-1-1985 Liability of Financial Institutions for Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Laws Sally Totten Gilmore William H. McBride Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Securities Law Commons Recommended Citation Sally Totten Gilmore and William H. McBride, Liability of Financial Institutions for Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Laws, 42 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 811 (1985), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol42/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LIABILITY OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATIONS OF SECURITIES LAWS SALLY TOTTEN GILMORE* WILLIAM H. MCBRIDE** Financial institutions recently have faced numerous lawsuits for allegedly aiding and abetting violations of the federal securities law. The authors hope their proposed model will balance the rights and obligations of the respective parties as well as the need for a consistent but fair approach based on economic realities. Liability for aiding and abetting arises from the knowing and substantial assistance of the commission of a securities law violation., The action or inaction of the secondary defendant (the aider and abettor) must have assisted the primary violator's wrongdoing, and the secondary defendant must have known of both the commission of the underlying violation and his own role in the matter.
    [Show full text]
  • School Principals and New York Times: Ohio's Narrow Reading of Who Is a Public Official Or Public Figure
    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 48 Issue 1 Symposium: Re-Orienting Law and Article 16 Sexuality 2000 School Principals and New York Times: Ohio's Narrow Reading of Who Is a Public Official or Public Figure Andrew L. Turscak Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Torts Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Note, School Principals and New York Times: Ohio's Narrow Reading of Who Is a Public Official or Public Figure, 48 Clev. St. L. Rev. 169 (2000) This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND NEW YORK TIMES: OHIO’S NARROW READING OF WHO IS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC FIGURE I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 169 II. THE NEW YORK TIMES RULE .............................................. 170 A. Who is a Public Official?............................................. 172 B. Who is a Public Figure?.............................................. 174 III. EAST CANTON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION V. MCINTOSH..... 175 A. Background.................................................................. 175 B. Procedural History ...................................................... 176 IV. IS A SCHOOL PRINCIPAL A PUBLIC OFFICIAL
    [Show full text]
  • Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability
    CHAPTER 6: PARTIES TO CRIME AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY The text discusses parties to crime in terms of accessories and accomplices. Accessories are defined as accessory before the fact – those who help prepare for the crime – and accessories after the fact – those who assist offenders after the crime. Accomplices are defined as those who participate in the crime. Under the common law, accessories were typically not punished as much as accomplices or principle offenders; on the other hand, accomplices were usually punished the same as principal offenders. Accomplices and Accessories Before the Fact Under Ohio’s statutes, accomplices and accessories before the fact are now treated similarly, while accessories after the fact are treated separately under the obstruction of justice statute discussed later. Under Ohio’s complicity staute: (A) No person acting with the kind of culpability required for an offense…shall do any of the following: Solicit or procure another to commit the offense; Aid or abet another in committing the offense; Conspire with another to commit the offense… ; Cause an innocent or irresponsible person to commit the offense. (Ohio Revised Code, § 2923.03, 1986, available at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.03). Note that parts of the complicity statute – (A)(1) and (A)(3) – mention both solicitation and conspiracy. These two crimes are discussed in Chapter 7. The punishment for complicity is the same as for the principal offender; that is, if Offender A robs a liquor store and Offender B drives the getaway car, both offenders are subject to the same punishment, even though Offender A would be charged with robbery and Offender B would be charged with complicity (Ohio Revised Code, § 2923.03 (F), 1986, available at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.03).
    [Show full text]
  • Aiding and Abetting Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute
    To Proceed with Caution? Aiding andAbetting Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute Ryan S. Lincoln* I. INTRODUCTION Accomplice liability is central to many of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) cases that have arisen since Filhrtigav. Peha-Irala.1 Many plaintiffs bring ATS claims against non-state actors for aiding and abetting tortious conduct by state actors and other principals, instead of against the principles themselves. The proliferation of actions against alleged accomplices is not merely an attempt to get around doctrines that shield state actors from liability, such as the act of state doctrine or the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Rather, a globalizing economy has increased the involvement of third-party actors in regions of the world where alleged tortious activity often occurs. This has increased the number of ATS claims against defendants for aiding and abetting violations of the law of nations, and resulted in doctrinal confusion concerning the contours of these types of violations. While the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain2 narrowed the scope of claims that could violate the law of nations and therefore be actionable under the ATS, it did not specifically address the question of accomplice liability. In footnote 20 the Court noted, but did not take up, the issue of "whether international law extends the scope of liability for a violation of a given norm to the perpetrator being sued, if the defendant is a private actor such as a corporation or individual."' 3 Following Sosa, plaintiffs have brought * J.D. Candidate 2011 University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; M.T.S Harvard Divinity School; A.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation: Extension of the Actual Malice Standard to Private Litigants - Colson V
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 59 Issue 4 Article 11 October 1983 Defamation: Extension of the Actual Malice Standard to Private Litigants - Colson v. Stieg James R. Bayer Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation James R. Bayer, Defamation: Extension of the Actual Malice Standard to Private Litigants - Colson v. Stieg , 59 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1153 (1983). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol59/iss4/11 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. DEFAMATION: EXTENSION OF THE "ACTUAL MALICE" STANDARD TO PRIVATE LITIGANTS Colson v. Stieg 89 II. 2d 205, 433 N.E.2d 246 (1982) JAMES R. BAYER, 1984* The success of first amendment challenges in the last two decades to the common law tort of defamation has been described as "[u]nquestionably the greatest victory won by defendants in the mod- em law of torts."' The tort of defamation, which provides a cause of action to persons whose reputations are injured as a result of oral or written statements made by others, 2 has been subject to several modifi- cations as a result of these first amendment challenges. For a number of centuries, plaintiffs could often recover without regard to whether the defendant was at fault.3 However, the United States Supreme Court has determined that the first amendment protects some defama- tory speech, and, as a consequence, the Court has imposed a fault re- quirement on the tort.
    [Show full text]
  • Implied Consent Training Manual
    Mississippi Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory / Highway Safety Patrol Implied Consent Evidential Breath Alcohol Testing Training 10/14 1 of 70 Evidential Breath Alcohol Testing Training Page # Foreword 3 Introduction 4 Glossary 5 Reference 6 Alcohol 7 Instrument Theory 10 Introduction to a Breath Test 14 Implied Consent Policies and Procedures Appendix A MS Code, 1972 Annotated Appendix B 10/14 2 of 70 Foreword The MS Crime Laboratory (MCL), pursuant to MS Code 63-11-5 and 63-11-19 Implied Consent is authorized to approve satisfactory training of person’s, required to certify the location of evidential breath alcohol instruments, the certification of the calibration of those instruments, and training of those persons conducting evidential breath alcohol testing in the state of Mississippi. This manual is for the instruction, training and certification of those person’s whose duties are described above. This training will also include verbal instructions and demonstration by qualified MS DPS personnel and/or designated agents. It is MCL’s intention that use of this manual will provide an environment for learning, educating, training and referencing by MS DPS personnel and/or designated agents. This material does not supercede current state statue or implied consent policies and procedures. This material will be updated and modified when necessary or required. Training Objectives • Understanding of the terminology and functions of the breath analyzing instrument • Perform a breath test procedure • Identify forms pertaining to evidentiary breath test analysis and properly distribute those forms Permits (Eligibility under MS. Code 63-11-19) • MHP • Sheriff or His Deputies • City Policeman • Officer of a State-Supported Institution of Higher Learning-Campus Police • Pearl River Valley Supply District Security Officer (Ross Barnett Reservoir Policeman) • National Park Ranger • Military Policeman Stationed on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of a Sample of Felony Offenses
    NORTH CAROLINA SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION CLASSIFICATION OF A SAMPLE OF OFFENSES (Effective 12/1/17) CLASS A FELONIES Maximum Punishment of Death or Life Without Parole First-Degree Murder. (14-17) CLASS B1 FELONIES Maximum Punishment of Life Without Parole First-Degree Forcible Sexual Offense. (14-27.26)/First-Degree Second-Degree Murder. (14-17(b)) Statutory Sexual Offense. (14-27.29) First-Degree Forcible Rape. (14-27.21)/First-Degree Statutory Rape (14-27.24) CLASS B2 FELONIES Maximum Punishment of 484* Months Second-Degree Murder. (14-17(b)(1) and (2)) CLASS C FELONIES Maximum Punishment of 231* Months Second-Degree Forcible Rape. (14-27.22) First-Degree Kidnapping. (14-39) Second-Degree Forcible Sexual Offense. (14-27.27) Embezzlement (amount involved $100,000 or more). (14-90) Assault W/D/W/I/K/I/S/I. (14-32(a)) CLASS D FELONIES Maximum Punishment of 204* Months Voluntary Manslaughter. (14-18) Child Abuse Inflicting Serious Physical Injury. (14-318.4(a)) First-Degree Burglary. (14-51) Death by Vehicle. (20-141.4(a)(1)) First-Degree Arson. (14-58) Sell or Deliver a Controlled Substance to a Person Under 16 But Armed Robbery. (14-87) More than 13 Years of Age. (90-95(e)(5)) CLASS E FELONIES Maximum Punishment of 88* Months Sexual Activity by a Substitute Parent or Custodian. (14-27.31) Assault with a Firearm on a Law Enforcement Officer. (14-34.5) Assault W/D/W/I/S/I. (14-32(b)) Second-Degree Kidnapping. (14-39) Assault W/D/W/I/K.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation Is More Than Just a Tort: a New Constitutional Standard for Internet Student Speech
    Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal Volume 2013 Number 2 Article 8 Summer 3-1-2013 Defamation is More than Just a Tort: a New Constitutional Standard for Internet Student Speech Reesa Miles Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj Part of the Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Reesa Miles, Defamation is More than Just a Tort: a New Constitutional Standard for Internet Student Speech, 2013 BYU Educ. & L.J. 357 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj/vol2013/iss2/8 . This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEFAMATION IS MORE THAN JUST A TORT: A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD FOR INTERNET STUDENT SPEECH I. INTRODUCTION The school is a special environment. While school officials must be able to punish student behavior, students have an arguably equal interest in preserving their First Amendment right to free speech. Through a series of Supreme Court decisions, the law is well established that students do not enjoy the same First Amendment protections as adults. This differential treatment is grounded in historical notions of the significant impact schools have on America’s youth. As early as Brown v. Board of Education, the Court held that education is essential to our democratic society, as schools are “a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment.”1 Since Brown, the Court has stated that the school must balance the “unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms .
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law for Paralegals: Chapter 7 Introduction
    Criminal Law for Paralegals: Chapter 7 Introduction Tab Text Chapter 7 Principals, Accessories, and Attempt Introduction This chapter addresses the culpability of principals and accessories, and their respective guilt. A person who is present when a crime is committed is a principal, whether they are acting as a lookout or aiding in the commission of the crime in some other manner. Someone who is not present when the crime is committed, but helps in the planning of the crime, is an accessory before the fact. An accessory after the fact is someone who helps to conceal the crime or the perpetrator after a crime has been committed. A conspiracy occurs when two or more people agree to commit a crime. Conspirators can be punished for both the conspiracy to commit a crime as well as the crime itself. This chapter also discusses those who attempt to commit a crime, by making preparations to commit a crime and taking an action in furtherance of the crime. All of these categories of perpetrators, principals, accessories, and those who attempt criminal activity, can be prosecuted for their criminal actions. Lecture Notes Tab Text Principals and Accessories Principal A principal is the person who commits the crime or who is present when the crime is committed. While there is a technical distinction between principals in the first degree and principals in the second degree, courts generally do not distinguish their roles at the time of sentencing. Principal in the First Degree: A person who commits the crime Principal in the Second Degree: A person who aids in the commission of the crime and is generally physically present or close by at the time of the crime (e.g., a lookout).
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Crime Data Using Principal Component Analysis: a Case Study of Katsina State
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Gulumbe, Shehu U.; Dikko, H. G.; Bello, Yusuf Article Analysis of crime data using principal component analysis: A case study of Katsina State CBN Journal of Applied Statistics Provided in Cooperation with: The Central Bank of Nigeria, Abuja Suggested Citation: Gulumbe, Shehu U.; Dikko, H. G.; Bello, Yusuf (2012) : Analysis of crime data using principal component analysis: A case study of Katsina State, CBN Journal of Applied Statistics, ISSN 2476-8472, The Central Bank of Nigeria, Abuja, Vol. 03, Iss. 2, pp. 39-49 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/142064 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu CBN Journal of Applied Statistics Vol.
    [Show full text]