Friday, September 14, 2012

United States v. Lanier case brief

United States v. Lanier
          1. Facts: Lanier is a judge, who used his power to sexually assault several women. He was found guilty of several violations of 242 for depriving the victims of the right to be free from willful sexual assault.
          2. Issue: What is the requisite standard for determining whether particular conduct falls within the range of criminal liability under Section 242
          3. The court sets the standard as: “if in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness [under the Constitution is] apparent,” then the fair warning is satisfied.
          4. There are three concerns about fair warning of a statute
            1. The vagueness doctrine bars enforcement of a statute that a reasonable person must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.
            2. The canon of strict construction of criminal statutes (rule of lenity) require any ambiguity to be resolved in favor of the defendant
            3. Due process bars courts from applying a novel construction of a criminal statute to conduct that neither the statute nor any prior judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its scope
          5. The lower court felt that the test ought to be whether a prior judicial decision has recognized the right that the defendant has allegedly deprived the plaintiff of (in this case the right to be free of sexual assault), and then there must be a case with a similar factual scenario prior to the present case… since the Supreme Court struck this test down for the one set out above, the court remands.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads

https://www.pexels.com/photo/coworkers-talking-outside-4427818/ Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...