|
|
|
| Commerce Clause |
|
Gonzales v. Raich,
No. 03-1454 (U.S., June 6, 2005): Bad news for "medicinal use" marijuana users. The Court held that the Commerce Clause gives Congress enough authority to prohibit the local use and cultivation of marijuana under California law which allows it for medical purposes. Not surprising. Justice O'Connor delivers a spirited dissent in defense of state's rights.
|
|
|
United States v. Thomas,
No. 04-8066 (June 14, 2005) (Published): Wyoming case in which convictions at jury trial of using interstate commerce to persuade a minor to engage in sex acts are affirmed over challenges of overbreadth and vagueness, sufficiency of the evidence, misc. evidentiary issues, an interesting claim of vindictive prosecution when the Government added an additional count to the Indictment after the trial ended in a mistrial the first time, and Booker error (plain error not found).
|
|
|
United States v. Hamilton,
No. 04-4091 (10th Cir., June 28, 2005) (Published): Transportation of child pornography in interstate commerce affirmed over several challenges. Interesting discussion of internet "newsgroups" and how the police found out Hamilton posted the offending images to one of the newsgroups.
|
|
|
United States v. Patton,
No. 05-3169 (10th Cir., June 20, 2006) (Published): Commerce Clause: Very lengthy opinion dissecting the Supreme Court's seemingly inconsistent approach to federal criminal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause. In this case, Patton was convicted of simple possession of a bullet-proof vest (body armor) in Kansas. There is a federal statute that makes this a criminal offense when done by a felon which, of course, Patton was at the time of the possession. The panel affirmed the conviction and the congressional authority to criminalize the conduct but candidly invited the Supreme Court to clarify the analysis under the Commerce Clause.
|
|
|
United States v. Gillespie,
No. 05-6292 (10th Cir., June 30, 2006) (Published): 1. Commerce Clause; 2. Excessive Sentence: This is the case involving the Molotov cocktail attack on the synagogue in Oklahoma City. No one was injured and Gillespie videotaped himself doing the deed. He went to jury trial and was convicted. He was sentenced on three counts which shook out to an aggregate sentence of 468 months (39 years). Gillespie appealed on several grounds but all were denied. This case contains an interesting analysis of the Commerce Clause concerning whether churches "affect" interstate commerce. The synagogue in this case did so because it also had a pre-school and a gift shop in addition to being a house of worship. The panel also produced a letter from Gillespie to the synagogue officials which was filled with racial hate. The panel recognized a "narrow" proportionality principle in the Eighth Amendment that governs non-capital cases but as other cases have held, this principle is "narrow" indeed and the 39-years sentence was upheld.
|
|
|
|
