News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Criminal Prosecution

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Womble Bond Dickinson

Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split and Finds Federal Gratuities Inapplicable to State and Local Officials

Womble Bond Dickinson on

On June 26, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in a public corruption case that could have a lasting impact on how the U.S. Government prosecutes corruption and procurement fraud cases involving state and local...more

Baker Donelson

Timing is Everything: The Court's Latest Gift to Defendants in Bribery Prosecutions (Snyder v. United States)

Baker Donelson on

Readers of prior Firm client alerts in the white-collar criminal space will no doubt recall the Supreme Court's recent trend of scaling back the powers of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in prosecuting public corruption...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - July 2, 2024

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

On July 1, 2024, the last day of the 2023-2024 term, the Supreme Court of the United States issued four decisions: Trump v. United States, No. 23-939: This case concerns the scope of former President Donald J. Trump’s...more

Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak

Supreme Court Decision on Presidential Immunity in Trump v. United States

Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak on

On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Trump v. United States. The six-Justice majority concluded that the President of the United States is entitled to at least a presumption of immunity from...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Supreme Court's Decision in Diaz Could Be a Boon for Criminal Healthcare Fraud Defendants

Holland & Knight LLP on

A defendant's mens rea, or intent, is almost always a contested element in a criminal prosecution, particularly in criminal healthcare fraud cases that frequently arise out of complex legal and regulatory regimes....more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Trump v. United States

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. United States, No. 23-939, holding that former Presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for official acts that arise within their “conclusive and...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Supreme Court Holds Bribery Statute Does Not Criminalize After-the-Fact Gratuities

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

In the latest example of the Roberts court reining in the government’s use of broadly worded criminal statutes, on June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Snyder that the federal bribery statute does not...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Snyder v. United States

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On June 26, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Snyder v. United States, No. 23-108, holding that federal statute 18 U. S. C. § 666, which makes it a crime for most state and local officials to “corruptly” solicit, accept,...more

Miller Canfield

Junk Science or Relevant Evidence: Supreme Court Says Experts May Now Aid in Determining Criminal Intent

Miller Canfield on

In criminal cases, oftentimes the most significant element in dispute is whether the defendant harbored the intent to “knowingly” or “willfully” violate the criminal law at issue.  If the defendant denies that he knew what he...more

Benesch

U.S. Supreme Court Allows Prosecutors a Game-Changing Weapon: Broad Expert Testimony on Criminal Intent

Benesch on

Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) provides that experts in criminal cases cannot state an opinion about the defendant’s mens rea. That is, the expert must not state an opinion about “whether the defendant did or did not have a...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - June 20, 2024

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued four decisions today: Moore v. United States, No. 22-800: This case concerns the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (“MRT”) included in the 2017 Tax Cuts and...more

Holland & Hart - Your Trial Message

Ground Your Hypotheticals

Holland & Hart - Your Trial Message on

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on yet another momentous legal issue – this time, the claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for claimed official acts by former President, Donald Trump who...more

Hicks Johnson

Four Years of McGirt: Reviewing Changes in Tax, Energy, and Criminal Law

Hicks Johnson on

Four years on from the Supreme Court’s monumental decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, the results have been a mixed bag for all parties involved. In our previous McGirt update, we detailed potential tax and regulatory...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - February 29, 2024

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in one case: Trump v. United States, No. 23-939: This case concerns the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump in Special...more

Benesch

Supreme Court to Weigh in on Scope of Federal Bribery Statute

Benesch on

In Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States could redefine the legal boundaries regarding federal bribery as it prepares to answer whether the primary federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666,...more

Fisher Phillips

Workplace Law Forecast 2024 - Your workplace law recap for 2023 and predictions for 2024 to help you prepare for the coming year.

Fisher Phillips on

When I reflect on the relationship that our firm has with our clients, I’m most proud of the fact that you can always count on us. That often means defending complex litigation, steering you through regulatory threats,...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Over Dissent, Circuit Embraces Strict “Collateral/Direct” Distinction for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on

In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), the Supreme Court held that attorneys must advise their noncitizen clients of the risk of deportation arising from criminal conviction, and that the failure to do so violates the...more

Troutman Pepper

RICO and Foreign Arbitration Enforcement - RICO Report Podcast

Troutman Pepper on

Join Troutman Pepper White Collar and Litigation Partner Cal Stein for a special podcast series, discussing the legal landscape surrounding the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). In this installment,...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Counterman v. Colorado

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Counterman v. Colorado, No. 22-138, holding that a criminal prosecution based on a true threat of violence requires proof that the defendant subjectively understood the...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: The Latest on Federal Court Treatment of Criminal Defendants

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

Last week, the Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court issued opinions on criminal law that could affect trial and sentencing strategy for white collar defendants in regulated industries. District court discretion does not...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Supreme Court Narrows Scope of Aggravated Identity Theft Law in Healthcare Fraud Case

Holland & Knight LLP on

The healthcare industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States. Healthcare companies and practitioners devote significant resources to complying with the complex and often changing legal and...more

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP

In a win for defendants, the Supreme Court limits the aggravated identity theft statute and resulting prosecutorial...

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP on

Federal prosecutors will now be cabined in their ability to use aggravated identity theft charges to pressure defendants to plead guilty to other offenses in exchange for avoiding the two-year mandatory minimum, mandatory...more

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Supreme Court Cautions Against Overly Broad Criminal Charging Decisions

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck another blow against overcriminalization of federal criminal statutes, i.e., the application of criminal provisions in specific laws in ways that Congress never intended. The court’s...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Supreme Court Unanimously Reins in the Government’s Use of the Aggravated Identify Theft Statute

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

In an extremely consequential decision issued last week, the United States Supreme Court reined in what the Court termed the government’s “boundless interpretation” of the aggravated identity theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Is this “Good-Bye” to the Two Year Mandatory Minimum in Healthcare Fraud Cases?

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the aggravated identity theft statute –and its mandatory minimum of two years – is not triggered merely because someone else’s identification...more

175 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 7
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide