Justice Thomas continued in relevant part: Expert testimony that “most people” in a group have a particular mental state is not an opinion about “the defendant” and thus does not violate Rule 704(b). Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a) sets out a general rule that “an...
On June 20, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Delilah Diaz v. United States. The principal issue concerned the admissibility of opinion evidence concerning “most people’s” mental state. Justice Thomas wrote for the 6-3 majority in relevant...
The 6-3 United States Supreme Court majority concluded with the following in relevant part: Brown also claims that his reading is required by United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 110, which says that when the law changes while a case is in progress, the case...
Justice Alito continued in relevant part: Petitioners various other arguments are unpersuasive. Relying on the so-called reference canon, Jackson claims that ACCA “incorporates the schedules ‘as they exist whenever a question under ACCA arises.” Brief of Petitioner...
Justice Alito continued in relevant part: The Government’s interpretation would treat state offenses “involving a controlled substance (as defined in the CSA)” like those federal offenses “under the CSA.” Petitioners’ interpretations, by contrast, would treat those...
The Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: Jackson’s presentence report identified several prior Florida convictions, including convictions in 1998 and 2004 for possession and distribution of cocaine. In 2015, the Federal Government amended the federal...
On May 23, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases captioned Brown v. United States. The principal issue before the Court concerned the application of the Armed Career Criminal Act to state drug convictions that occurred before amendments...
Justice Thomas concluded with the following in relevant part: ATF responds that a shooter is less physically involved with operating a bump-stock equipped rifle than operating the Model 37. It explains that once a shooter pulls the rifle’s trigger a single time, the...
The Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: Even if a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock could fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger,” it would not do so “automatically.” Section 5845(b) specifies the precise action that must...
Justice Thomas continued in relevant part: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b). A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” as defined by §5845(b) because: (1)...