document.write("" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "" + "

" + "Mon, Jun 8 2009 - 10:21 PM" + "

" + "Boyle v. United States: Not much structure needed for RICO" + "

" + "The Supreme Court held that an association-in-fact enterprise under RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), must have a \"structure,\" but it need not be, as Boyle sought the jury to be instructed in his bank robberies case, \"an ascertainable structure beyond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages.\" The \"structure\" contemplated by the RICO statute has three features: a purpose, relationships among the associates, and longevity sufficient to permit the associates to pursue the..." + "

" + "Mon, Jun 8 2009 - 10:19 PM" + "

" + "Bobby v. Bies: No Double Jeopardy bar on mental capacity in death cases" + "

" + "A State court’s determination that a defendant’s mental retardation was a mitigating factor in the penalty phase of a capital case does not trigger Double Jeopardy issue preclusion, and foreclose the question whether, in the wake of the subsequently-decided decision in Atkins v. Virginia, the defendant is ineligible for the death penalty because he is mentally retarded." + "

" + "

-- sponsor --

" + "Recommended: Click here to check for outdated drivers" + "

" + "Mon, Jun 8 2009 - 10:17 PM" + "

" + "Montejo v. Lousiana: Michigan v. Jackson overruled leaving an interrogation free-for-all" + "

" + "An inculpatory statement given by a defendant to police after the court ordered the appointment of counsel may be introduced at trial as evidence against him. In so holding, the Court overruled Michigan v. Jackson, which presumed that a waiver of the right to counsel was invalid once counsel was appointed at arraignment, and did not require the defendant to invoke the right to counsel. The Court explained that the protections of Miranda, Edwards and Minnick v. Mississippi, sufficed to protect de..." + "

" + "Mon, Jun 8 2009 - 10:13 PM" + "

" + "Abuelhawa v. United States: Drug Telephone Counts Punish Sales Not Purchases" + "

" + "Whether the use of a telephone to buy drugs for personal use \"facilitates\" the commission of a drug \"felony,\" in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), on the theory that the crime facilitated by the buyer is not his purchase of drugs for personal use (a misdemeanor), but is the seller’s distribution of the drugs to him (a felony). The Court answered in the negative, holding that using a telephone to make a misdemeanor drug purchase does not \"facilitat[e]\" felony drug distribution in violation of §843..." + "

" + "Mon, May 25 2009 - 8:07 PM" + "

" + "Puckett v. United States - Breached Plea Agreement Subject to Harmless Error Review" + "

" + "In exchange for Puckett’s guilty plea, the government agreed to request (1) a three-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction in his offense level; and (2) a sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline range. The district court accepted the plea, but before Puckett was sentenced he assisted in another crime. As a result, the government opposed any reduction in his offense level, and the judge denied the three-level reduction. On appeal, Puckett raised for the first time the argument t..." + "

" );