Statutory interpretation - Ethics in Government Act - Eighth Circuit holds Attorney General's referral of matters to independent counsel to be nonreviewable. - United States v. Tucker, 78 F.3d 1313 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 65 U.S.L.W. 3257 (U.S. Oct. 7, 1996)(No. 95-2013)

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's decision in United States v. Tucker extends the powers of independent counsel under the Ethics in Government Act beyond those contemplated by Congress and the Supreme Court. The Court held that the Attorney General's referral of investigations into the involvement of federal officials in Whitewater was not reviewable by the federal courts, despite the fact that investigations were being extended to cover other activities. The Court employed a relatedness standard different from the demonstrably related standard endorsed by the Supreme Court.

Investigations, Judicial review, Public officers, Government officials, Special prosecutors

---

Criminal law - double jeopardy - Sixth Circuit overturns criminal conviction of drug manufacturer after settlement of civil forfeiture as violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. - United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. granted, 64 U.S.L.W. 3477 (U.S. Jan. 12, 1996)(No. 95-345)

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit properly decided United States v. Ursery in finding that criminal prosecution after a civil forfeiture settlement was reached violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court rejected the extreme rules of other circuits that all parallel proceedings violate double jeopardy or that contemporaneous actions always satisfy double jeopardy as one proceeding. The fact-based approach taken by the Sixth Circuit balances prosecutorial discretion and constitutional protections for criminal defendants.

Narcotics, Control of, Narcotics control, Forfeiture, Double jeopardy

---

Criminal law - perjury - Sixth Circuit sustains perjury conviction for answer to question with mistaken premise. - United States v. DeZarn, 157 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir. 1998)

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in United States v. DeZarn, ruled that a federal perjury defendant cannot employ a "literal truth" defense to a perjurious answer to a question with a mistaken premise if the jury decides beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew from the context what the questioner meant. This ruling will provide witnesses with an additional reason to clear up possible misunderstandings with their questioners.

United States, Perjury

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Class actions - class certification of mass torts - Seventh Circuit overturns Rule 23(b)(3) certification of a plaintiff class of hemophiliacs. - In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 184 (1995)
• Abstracts: Constitutional law - Establishment Clause - Seventh Circuit invalidates Illinois law mandating Good Friday school closure. - Metzl v. Leininger, 57 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 1995)
• Abstracts: Investor empowerment strategies in the Congressional reform of securities class actions. In-kind class action settlements

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.