Nate Pearson
Sekhar V. United States
U.S 12-357 (2013)
J. Scalia
Question Presented: Petitioner Giridar C. Sekhar was convicted of extortion under the federal law for potentially exposing an extramarital affair unless the general counsel for the state comptroller recommended that the state pension fund invest in a fund managed by Sekhar’s company. The meaning of the word “property” would be determined by the courts under the federal extortion law. They would also decide whether the General Counsel had recommended the “property” and if it could be subject to extortion by the federal law. The petitioner had argued for a narrow of the meaning or definition of the word “Property”. He wished that it were brought to the meaning of something that is of value and that is transferable.
Facts:
The New York State Comptroller is the one and only trustee for the Common Retirement Fund. The employee pension fund for the state of New York and the local government employees are all part of the Common retirement Fund. The Comptroller is the head authority to approve investments for the fund. In making these tough decisions, the Comptroller is advised and watched by his general Counsel. In 2008 the general counsel for the office of the State Comptroller of New York was told not to invest into a fund, which was managed by FA Technology Ventures. The investment would have given the FA Technology Company millions in services fees. Later on the General Counsel had received an email from an anonymous sender. The sender was “blackballing a recommendation on a fund” and threatened to disclose the General Counsel’s extramarital affair to his wife the comptrollers and all the other people involved with the fund if he d...
... middle of paper ...
...
At what level (Federal, State) was the case prosecuted? This case was prosecuted federally in the United States Supreme Court
Were there any civil lawsuits in addition to criminal penalties? No, there were not any civil law suits in this case
Was there a dollar amount of losses sustained by the victim(s)? There was a possible loss of up to seven million dollars, which would have been taken by Sekhar and put into his fund, which would have then been taken out for his personal use.
Works Cited
Cornell University, . (n.d.). Sekhar v. United States. In Cornell University Law School. Retrieved May 5, 2014
Sekhar v. United States (2013, December). In Findlaw.com. Retrieved May 5, 2014
SEKHAR v. UNITED STATES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 May 2014. .
Works Cited
"Key Supreme Court Cases: Schenck v. United States - American Bar ..." 2011. 14 Jan. 2014
Wagner, F. D. (2010). McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.. Supreme Court of the United States, 1, 1-214. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Vbansal. “The Effects of Dred Scott V. Sanford.” Associated Content. 06 August 2007. 26 May 2010.
Meyer v. State of Nebraska. 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 Sct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042. (1923)
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gunther, G. (1991). Constitutional Law. Twelfth Edition. New York: The Foundation Press, Inc. pp. 1154-1161.
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
Rehnquist, William H., Brennan, William J. "A Casebook on the Law and Society: What Rights
SHELLEY v. KRAEMER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 23 March 2014. .
"MORSE v. FREDERICK." Cornell University Law School. N.p., 19 Mar. 2007. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.
. One of the very distinct features of law, is how it can apply to a plethora of different areas. In addition, each of those areas has its own interpretation that can be either completely different or identical to another part. In the Pastrana v. United States (746 F.2d 1447) a plethora of new information was provided that showed the versatility of law, especially when it involves the United States government. The newly acquired scholarly information included the application of immunity to government employees under specific circumstances.
U.S. Supreme Court. WOODSON v. NORTH CAROLINA 428 U.S. 280 (1976). Cornell University of Law. 1976. Web.
"Rights of the Accused." : Supreme Court Cases. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2013. .
Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice, 5(2), 454-460.