Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Certain pretrial delays are automatically excluded from the Act's time limits, such as delays caused by pretrial motions. [9] In Henderson v.United States, 476 U.S. 321, 330 (1986), the Supreme Court held that § 3161 excludes "all time between the filing of a motion and the conclusion of the hearing on that motion, whether or not a delay in holding that hearing is 'reasonably necessary.'"
Congress also enacted some specific federal rules, beginning in 1790 with provisions included in the first U.S. federal criminal statutes. [2] The result was an incomplete patchwork of state and federal law that the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts did little to fill in, despite seeming authorization under the Judiciary Act to do so. [3]
Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, in a criminal proceeding in federal court, a defendant who does not alert the district court to a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must show on appeal that the violation affirmatively affected his ...
Threatening other officials is a Class D or C felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and other statutes, that is investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When national boundaries are transcended by such a threat, it is considered a terrorist threat. [2]
Maximum fine [2] [note 1] Probation term [3] [note 2] Maximum supervised release term [4] [note 3] Maximum prison term upon supervised release revocation [5] Special assessment [6] [note 4] Felony A Life imprisonment (or death in certain cases of murder, treason, espionage or mass trafficking of drugs) $250,000: 1-5 years: 5 years: 5 years ...
By the Act, Congress exercised its power to define the rules that should govern this particular area in the trial of criminal cases instead of leaving the matter of lawmaking to the courts. [6] The Act, and not the Supreme Court decision in the Jencks case, governs the production of statements of government witnesses in a federal criminal trial ...
The Vicinage Clause is a provision in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution regulating the vicinity from which a jury pool may be selected. The clause says that the accused shall be entitled to an "impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law". [1]
The United States Constitution, including the United States Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, contains the following provisions regarding criminal procedure. Due to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, all of these provisions apply equally to criminal proceedings in state courts, with the exception of the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Vicinage Clause of the Sixth ...