1. In the case of The United States v. Rodriquez-Moreno the defendant was hired by a drug distributor to retrieve stolen drugs. During this process the defendant kidnapped a middle man, transporting the victim through the states of Texas, New Jersey, New York and Maryland in his attempt to retrieve the stolen drugs. While in Maryland, the defendant came into possession of a revolver, which he used to threaten the victim. Shortly after the victim was able to escape and he called the police. The defendant was tried at a New Jersey Court, where along with other charges, he was charged with violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (1). 18 U.S.C. 924 (c)(1) states that if an individual possesses or uses a firearm during an act related to violence or drugs, …show more content…
v. Rodriguez-Moreno was a crime of continuance and not a crime that occurred only at one point and time we look to United States v. Cabrales. In this case we see a money laundering scheme in which the defendant deposited $40,000, revenue from cocaine sales in Missouri, to her bank in Florida. The defendant was found to only be guilty of money laundering in the state of Florida and not Missouri, “the court said that Cabrales was not accused of a continuing offense, but was charged with money laundering transactions that began, continued, and were completed only in Florida (U.S. v. Cabrales, …show more content…
v. Rodriguez-Moreno the kidnapping offense was ongoing, while the cocaine sale in United States v. Cabrales was a completed action by the time the money laundering crime occurred. After the sale was final the defendant took profits from the drug distribution and committed the crime of money laundering. In U.S. v. Rodriguez-Moreno the kidnapping was an ongoing crime that was still in occurrence when the violation of 924(c)(1) occurred. For that reason kidnapping and possessing a firearm are not two separate crimes, but are attached. Consequently if one crime took place in one venue, the violation of a firearm is attached and the defendant must be charged with a violation in the same venue, “the underlying crime of violence is a critical part of the 924 (c)(1) offense (U.S. v. Rodriguez-Moreno,
Ernesto Miranda was born March 19, 1941 and died January 31st, 1976. He committed his first serious crime in eighth grade, and was convicted of felony burglary. He was sentenced to one year in reform school, in his case, Arizona State Industrial School for Boys. After being released from a separate sentence from the reform school, Miranda moved to Los Angeles. While in L.A. Ernesto was arrested for lack of supervision, violating curfew and being a “peeping tom”. He was in custody for forty-five days in the county detention home. Miranda enlisted in the United States Army at the age of approximately 19 on September 03, 1946. Ernesto was a private in the Philippine Scouts branch of the Philippine Scouts during World War II.
In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s there were many issues that involved racial segregation with many different communities. A lot of people did not took a stand for these issues until they were addressed by other racial groups. Mendez vs Westminster and Brown vs The Board of Education, were related cases that had to take a stand to make a change. These two cases helped many people with different races to come together and be able to go to school even if a person was different than the rest.
In an article written by a Senior student they discuss a monumental moment in Mexican American history concerning equality in the South. The student’s paper revolves around the Pete Hernandez V. Texas case in which Hernandez receives a life in prison sentence by an all white jury. The essay further discusses how Mexican Americans are technically “white” americans because they do not fall into the Indian (Native American), or black categories and because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848. The student’s paper proceeds to discuss the goals connecting the Hernandez V. Texas case which was to secure Mexican American’s right within the fourteenth amendment [1].
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
as a felony crime. But recently there have been court cases taken up in two
illegal for a felon to possess any firearm. ( Moore 1994 p 440) Most of the
During the 111th Congress, the gun control debate was looked into by two key Supreme Court decisions. In District of Columbia v. Hel...
Having a gun is a guaranteed law according the the Constion. The Constution states in the Second
The 2nd amendment “The Right to Bear Arms” has not been brought up to date in over 200 hundred years and it is time that we make the necessary adjustments. Handguns and assault weapons are to blame for many mass killings in America. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Handguns and semi automatic weapons have been used in these massacres. The choice of rules such as exercising the right to further background checks and limit the availability of automatic weapons should be the first and foremost concern of both federal and state legislators.
The Web. The Web. 5 June 2015. Flynn, Michael W. “Handgun Laws.” quickanddirtytips.com. 2008.
The government has passed many laws regarding the ownership and use of firearms. Currently the federal law states the following: The use of any firearm in a violent or drug trafficking crime is punishable by law. A person who wishes to purchase a firearm must be 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shot gun and a person must be 21 years of age to purchase a hand gun. Regarding travel, notwithstanding any state or local law, a person shall be entitled to transport a firearm from any place where they may lawfully possess and transport such firearm if the firearm is unloaded and in the trunk.
was Wisconsin v. Leroy Reed, a criminal trial for the possession of a firearm by
Is it possible to sympathize with two calculated killers, if they claimed abuse? The jurors of the Menendez brothers’ first trial thought so. The Menendez brothers came from a wealthy family who lived in Beverly Hills, but everything was not as posh as it seemed. Lyle and Erik Menendez seemed to have it all, but their family allegedly had a deep secret. This secret eventually came out on the day that they murdered their parents in cold blood. The brothers shot their parents in their own home, like professional hit men. Aside from this trial, there have been many other cases showing conflicting ideas between jurors. In the play Twelve Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, he portrays the modern-day problems with the justice system. Through researching this case and reading the play, Twelve Angry Men, one can infer that the jurors from this play would hav/e great difficulty in coming to a verdict in the Menendez Trial.
This case illustrated that there were real consequences to white collar crime. In addition to paying the fifty million dollar fine, he relinquished another fifty million dollars of his illegal trading profits. (He still had millions remaining, however, from his illegal gains.) His actual prison sentence was three years, yet he served only twenty-two months in the federal prison at Lompoc, California, which was known to have a “country-club” atmosphere.
Imagine if you will, society that is so plagued with crime that its citizens are afraid to step out of their homes for fear of being a victim of a violent crime. With no way to protect themselves or their families, they are at the whim of the criminals that prey on them. Next imagine a society where it is virtually crime free, free of any types of violent crimes, one is able to leave the front door unlock and return home without worrying if there has been a burglary. Although these scenarios are to the extreme it is a reality to some extent as to the conditions here in the State of California at the present time, where a law abiding citizen cannot legally protect themselves in everyday life from the preying few that society has labeled criminals. Unlike other states in the nation California does not issue Concealed Weapons Permits in a consistent fair manner, therefore depending on the location of one’s residence it could determine if a citizen has a higher chance of becoming a victim without being able to have the choice to defend one’s self. It is this author’s belief that Concealed Weapons Permits do lower the crime rate by being a deterrence of criminal activity that fear the repercussions of facing a citizen that is armed and well trained in the use of the weapon of choice.