Brief filed: 09/08/2017
Marinello v. United States
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 16-1144
Decision below, United States v. Marinello, 839 F.3d 209 (2nd Cir. Oct. 14, 2016).
This Court has routinely cabined broadly-drafted criminal statutes that are vague or lack meaningful mens rea requirements. The omnibus clause raises vagueness concerns. The government’s interpretation of the omnibus clause invites its arbitrary enforcement. The “corruptly” mens rea requirement does not protect the statute from vagueness concerns or constitute a meaningful mens rea requirement. applied to 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) does not restrict the application of the statute in any meaningful manner. Whether the defendant has the “intent to obtain an unlawful benefit” depends on whether the benefit was unlawful, not on whether the defendant knew the benefit was unlawful. Even legal acts or omissions can be criminal. The “unlawful benefit” does not need to be a tax benefit. The act or omission need not even actually obstruct or impede the administration of the tax code or be carried out with the intent to obstruct or impede the administration of the tax code.
Pattern Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses: A Trial Strategy & Resource Guide
In a criminal trial, cross-examination of the prosecution’s forensic expert may make the difference between victory or defeat.
2020 Sample Motions Collection Update
NACDL’s 2020 Sample Motions Collection is the follow-up to our wildly popular 2019 Sample Motions Collection and contains the newest and most recent additions to our ever-expanding Sample Motions library.
State v. Stone - A Case Study on Child Sexual Molestation & Sexual Battery
The criminal defense attorney tasked with defending such a case has to be prepared to not only show reasonable doubt, but to answer this question: If it did not happen, how is it that the child believes it did happen?
POZNER ON CROSS: Advanced Cross of Experts & Officers in DUI Cases
It’s not your strong opening argument. It’s not how many of your impassioned objections the judge sustains. It’s not even how you tie your theory of the case together with a dazzling closing statement bow. What wins your trial is your cross.
This is a sponsored ad
Manage Your Law Firm All in One Place
John Vecchione and Erica L. Marshall, Cause of Action Institute; Joshua L. Dratel, NACDL, Washington, DC.