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.
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. .
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, 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.
