The Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: Subsection (c)(2) also ensures that liability is still imposed for impairing the avail ability or integrity of other things used in an official proceeding beyond the “record[s], document[s], or other object[s]”...
Chief Justice Roberts continued in relevant part: The Court considers both “the specific context” in which (c)(2) appears “and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U. S. 337, 341. (1) Section 1512(c)(1) describes types of...
On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Fischer v. United States. The principal issue before the Court concerned whether the sufficiency of the evidence that the defendant impaired the availability of evidence surrounding the events of...
The Supreme Court majority concluded with the following in relevant part: The Government’s interpretation of the statute would create traps for unwary state and local officials. Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 411. The Government says that the statute would not cover...
Justice Kavanaugh continued in relevant part: Statutory structure reinforces that §666 is a bribery statute, not a two-for-one bribery-and-gratuities statute as the Government posits. The Government identifies no other provision in the U. S. Code that prohibits bribes...
The Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: This case involves James Snyder, who is the former mayor of Portage, Indiana. In 2013, while Snyder was mayor, Portage awarded two contracts to a local truck company, Great Lakes Peterbilt, and ultimately...
On June 26, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Snyder v. United States. The principal issue concerned the distinction between bribes and gratuities regarding federal law as it pertains to local and state officials. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for...
The Appellate Division concluded with the following in relevant part: Finally, we reject the court's conclusion that defendants not subject to incarceration would have no incentive to succeed in Recovery Court. Bishop, upon which it relied, made clear that it "did not...
The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: The court also placed undue emphasis on the conviction for which the person is being sentenced. As the Manual makes clear, early intervention is encouraged and the court may admit a person to Recovery Court without a...
On July 3, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Middlesex County case of State v. Matrongolo. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 concerned whether people charged with disorderly persons offenses are eligible for Recovery Court. Judge Natali wrote...