Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed in the text, "[i]n determining whether a similar motive to develop the testimony existed at the time of the elicitation of the former testimony the courts will search for some substantial identity of issues.
Although a court could detain an arrestee who threatened to flee before trial, such detention would be permissible because it would serve the basic objective of a criminal system -- bringing the accused to trial.
On the other side of the scale, of course, is the individual's strong interest in liberty. Rule b 1 slightly modified the prior testimony exception to the hearsay rule by substituting the "opportunity and similar motive" requirement for the identity-of-issues requirement.
Congress had executive but not legislative authority, and the federal judiciary was confined to admiralty. The United States also introduced documents indicating that the Family had an ownership interest in Cedar Park.
However, the Constitution grants each chamber some unique powers. Grant in which influential lobbies advocated for railroad subsidies and tariffs on wool.
When the Government proves by clear and convincing evidence that an arrestee presents an identified and articulable threat to an individual or the community, we believe that, consistent with the Due Process Clause, a court may disable the arrestee from executing that threat.
Finally, the judicial officer must include written findings of fact and a written statement of reasons for a decision to detain. He may request the presence of counsel at the detention hearing, he may testify and present witnesses in his behalf, as well as proffer evidence, and he may cross-examine other witnesses appearing at the hearing.
Salerno opposed the motion for detention, challenging the credibility of the Government's witnesses. Second, they contend that the Act contravenes the Eighth Amendment's proscription against excessive bail. The respondents maintain that we likewise may hold that Rule b 1 does not require a showing of similar motive in all instances.
The Act authorizes the detention prior to trial of arrestees charged with serious felonies who are found after an adversary hearing to pose a threat to the safety of individuals or to the community which no condition of release can dispel.
The United States thus asserts that, unless it had a "similar motive," we must conclude that the District Court properly excluded DeMatteis' and Bruno's testimony as hearsay. The Eighth Amendment has not prevented Congress from defining the classes of cases in which bail shall be allowed in this country.
Feldman argued the cause for the United States. They also agree that DeMatteis' and Bruno's grand jury testimony constituted "testimony given as For even if we were to conclude that the Eighth Amendment imposes some substantive limitations on the National Legislature's powers in this area, we would still hold that the Bail Reform Act is valid.
The United States never exposed the jury to anything analogous to a "privileged communication. In this case, by contrast, the United States never presented to the jury any version of what DeMatteis and Bruno had said in the grand jury proceedings.
The United States asserts that the District Court specifically found that it did not and that we should not review its factual determinations. I am therefore satisfied that the Government had an "opportunity and similar motive" to develop the grand jury testimony of witnesses Bruno and DeMatteis; consequently, the transcript of that testimony was admissible against the Government at respondents' trial under Rule b 1.
Virgin Islands and Guam. We hold that, as against the facial attack mounted by these respondents, the Act fully comports with constitutional requirements.
Even outside the exigencies of war, we have found that sufficiently compelling governmental interests can justify detention of dangerous persons. Wolfish, supra, at [p]. Train tickets, rail pass: with Rail Europe enjoy a rail travel across Europe.
Travel by train in Europe with Rail Europe, your travel planner. United States Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. SALERNO, () No. Argued: April 20, Decided: June 19, The respondents were indicted on a variety of federal charges, including fraud and racketeering in connection with the allocation of construction contracts among a so-called "Club" of companies in exchange for a share of the proceeds.
View this case and other resources at: Citation. U.S. Brief Fact Summary. A number of members of a New York City criminal organization were indicted on charges relating to conspiracy in the construction industry. OCTOBER TERM, Syllabus.
UNITED STATES tsfutbol.comO ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No.
Argued April 20, Decided June 19, United States v. Salerno, WLNo.
at *1 (7th Cir. August 1, ) (unpublished order). In this regard, one can easily envision a situation where Salerno did not extort Kopulos or Jahoda, yet still find that the Ferriola Street Crew existed, that Salerno was a member of the Crew, and that the Crew engaged in racketeering.
Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno was indicted on several violations of the Racketeering, Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), along with mail and wire fraud, extortion and.United states v salerno