United states v starzecpyzel ruling. Forensics chapter 1 Flashcards 2022-10-31
United states v starzecpyzel ruling
United States v. Starzecpyzel was a landmark case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1991. The case dealt with the issue of whether a person who had been convicted of a federal crime could be required to pay restitution to the victim as a condition of probation.
At the heart of the case was the question of whether such a requirement was consistent with the Constitution's prohibition on "excessive fines." In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that it was not.
The case arose when Stanley Starzecpyzel, a convicted fraudster, was ordered to pay $80,000 in restitution to his victims as a condition of his probation. Starzecpyzel argued that this requirement amounted to an excessive fine, and therefore violated the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
In its ruling, the Court held that while restitution can be a legitimate form of punishment, it must be proportional to the harm caused by the crime. In this case, the Court found that the restitution order was not proportional, as it exceeded the amount of loss suffered by the victims.
The Court's decision in United States v. Starzecpyzel has had significant implications for the way in which federal courts can impose restitution orders on convicted defendants. It has established that such orders must be proportional to the harm caused by the crime, and cannot be excessive in relation to the defendant's financial resources.
In addition to its practical significance, the case is also notable for the way in which it has helped to shape the broader legal landscape surrounding restitution and the Eighth Amendment. It has provided guidance to courts and lawmakers on the appropriate role of restitution in the criminal justice system, and has helped to ensure that the rights of defendants are protected against excessive fines and other forms of punishment.
Overall, United States v. Starzecpyzel was an important ruling that has had significant implications for the way in which restitution orders are imposed on convicted defendants in federal cases. It has helped to ensure that such orders are fair and proportionate, and has helped to protect the rights of defendants against excessive fines and other forms of punishment.
United States v. Havvard, 117 F. Supp. 2d 848 (S.D. Ind. 2000) :: Justia
Therefore, the general acceptance prong of Daubert is satisfied. Storer testified that she had never failed any of the in-house tests she was required to take by the Secret Service. Knowledge" Were the Court to apply Daubert to the proffered FDE testimony, it would have to be excluded. Finding this standard satisfied for the proffered testimony, Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony is denied. For example, Shonubi said the purpose of his last trip was to get married. .
United States v. Starzecpyzel, 880 F. Supp. 1027
. The fields of knowledge which may be drawn upon are not limited merely to the "scientific" and "technical" but extend to all "specialized" knowledge. . This obligation derives from Rule 702 and from Rule 104 a , which provides that "preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness. Kelly: How individual that feature might be. These qualities, in turn, support an inference of uniform criminal conduct in this case, the smuggling of the largest amount he believed he was capable of carrying on every trip.
forensics cases and terms test Flashcards
Attorney, of counsel , for U. . For the reasons already discussed, the Court respectfully disagrees with Judge Haight's characterization of the evidence, and with his pre- Daubert reliance, in part, on a long history of judicial acceptance. Conclusions about experts' reports. .
US v. Starzecpyzel, No. 93 Cr. 553 (LMM).
. . Demeanor includes facial expressions, body language, and such matters as a defendant's forcefulness in consulting with an attorney during court proceedings. United States, 483 U. . It is fundamental in our law that the right of a plaintiff to recover is limited to the allegations of his complaint. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Kumho Tire v.
Forensics chapter 1 Flashcards
. . COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION AC 39134 Lavine, Keller and Pellegrino, Js. . . The Court therefore treats forensic document expertise under the "technical, or other specialized knowledge" branch of Rule 702, which is apparently not governed by Daubert.
Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction, Connecticut Appellate Court, State Courts, COURT CASE
Kelly's inability to cite such studies, given her high standing within the FDE community and the substantial period of time that the government had to prepare both its case and its witness, leads to an inference that there are few useful scientific studies relevant to forensic document examination. In the Agent Orange litigation, the court noted two possible responses to this problem: Under the "strong" version of the preponderance rule, statistical correlations alone indicating that the probability of causation exceeds fifty percent are insufficient; some "particularistic" or anecdotal evidence, that is, "proof that can provide direct and actual knowledge of the causal relationship between the defendant's tortious conduct and the plaintiff's injury is required. It argued that the court was obligated, in light of Shonubi's perjury, to impose a two-point obstruction of justice enhancement under § 3C1. . Practice Book § 23-22 1 specifically provides that the petition shall state the specific facts upon which each specific claim of illegal confinement is based and the relief requested.
U.S. v. PRIME
Kelly: I think that gets back to the definition that I read as to what is significant, what a significant feature would be. You may also consider such factors as the information provided to the witness, and the reasoning and judgment the witness employed in coming to the conclusion that he or she testified to. . For this purpose, the Drug Enforcement Administration provides a formula for estimating theoretical yields from the quantities of precursor chemicals seized. Non-drug cases The use of approximations under the Guidelines is not limited to drug cases. FDEs also lack objective standards in regard to the number of exemplars required for an accurate determination as to genuineness. United States, 54 App.
United States v. Shonubi, 895 F. Supp. 460 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) :: Justia
These responses are on file with the court. . Moreover, the third edition, even as revised, remains a cache of sparkling examples that are both fascinating and instructive on the need for imagination and flexibility by lawyers and trial judges. The computer was first "fed" a list of the 117 net weights. The Supreme Court held that the "general acceptance" test established 70 years ago in Frye v. The determination of the facts in this case rests solely with you. .
U.S. v. Prime, Case No. CR01
Cressey, Criminology 275 1970 describing tendency of criminals to share knowledge. If you find that the field of forensic document examination is not sufficiently reliable, or that the particular document examiner is not sufficiently reliable, you are free to reject the testimony in whole. Q: And wouldn't you agree that such a classification system would help provide a reliable criterion for dividing handwriting into standardized identifiable units? One of the passengers in the vehicle died, and others were severely injured. What the system of Evidence needs is, not so much another set of rules, or fewer rules, as a judicial flexibility of rules. The court of appeals will affirm a sentence based on an estimated quantity 50 times greater than the amount actually seized. . Courts which deny themselves the help of statistical tools increase the risks of incorrect conclusions.