Criminal Law Blog
Drug Offenses and the Armed Career Criminal Act (Part 4)
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...
Drug Offenses and the Armed Career Criminal Act (Part 3)
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...
Drug Offenses and the Armed Career Criminal Act (Part 2)
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...
Drug Offenses and the Armed Career Criminal Act (Part 1)
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...
Bump Stocks and Prohibited Firearms (Part 4)
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...
Bump Stocks and Prohibited Firearms (Part 3)
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...
Bump Stocks and Prohibited Firearms (Part 2)
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)...
Bump Stocks and Prohibited Firearms (Part 1)
On June 14, 2024, The United States Supreme Court decided the case of Garland v. Cargill. The principal issue before the Court concerned whether the ATF could classify a bump stock as a machine gun, thereby making bump stocks illegal. Justice Thomas wrote for the 6-3...
Motions to Modify Restraining Orders
On May 30, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Hudson County case of State v. M.F.L. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-8 concerned whether the framework for Domestic Violence Restraining Orders can apply to motions to modify Sex Offender Restraining...
Restitution Renegotiation
On June 3, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Monmouth County case of State v. Jeffrey Walker. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-2 concerned whether a restitution order can be extinguished when victims cannot be located. Judge Chase wrote for the...
