Criminal Law Blog
Presidential Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions (Part 6)
The Supreme Court continued in relevant part: The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the...
Presidential Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions (Part 5)
The Chief Justice continued in relevant part: When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. Fitzgerald, 456 U. S., at 757. Determining whether an action is covered by...
Presidential Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions (Part 4)
Chief Justice Roberts continued in relevant part: But there is also a compelling “public interest in fair and effective law enforcement.” Vance, 591 U. S., at 808. Considering these competing considerations, the Court concludes that the separation of powers principles...
Presidential Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions (Part 3)
The Supreme Court continued in relevant part: In Fitzgerald, for instance, the Court concluded that a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from “damages liability for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” Id., at 756. The...
Presidential Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions (Part 2)
Chief Justice Roberts continued in relevant part: Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His...
Presidential Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions (Part 1)
On July 1, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Trump v. United States. The principal issue concerned the nature and scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecutions. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority in relevant part: A...
Juvenile Sex Offenders and the Safety of Others
On July 1, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Monmouth County case of IMO Registrant J.A. The principal issue before the Court under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2 concerned the standard for Megan’s Law registration termination for juveniles. The unanimous per curiam...
Juveniles and Megan’s Law (Part 2)
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: In In re Registrant H.D., the Court held that individuals who apply to terminate their Megan's Law requirements must demonstrate they have been offense-free for fifteen years from the time of conviction for...
Juveniles and Megan’s Law (Part 1)
On July 1, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Camden County case of IMO Registrant R.H. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2 concerned whether the fifteen-year offense-free requirement for Megan’s Law termination applies to juveniles who were...
Past Offenses and Jury Determinations (Part 5)
Justice Gorsuch concluded with the following in relevant part: Amicus next turns to the Double Jeopardy Clause, which permits a judge to look into a defendant’s past conduct to ask whether the government has charged a defendant for the same crime a second time. While...