请输入您要查询的百科知识:

 

词条 Taylor v. United States (2016)
释义

  1. Background

  2. Opinion of the Court

  3. References

  4. External links

{{Other uses|Taylor v. United States (disambiguation){{!}}Taylor v. United States}}{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Taylor v. United States
|ArgueDate=February 23
|ArgueYear=2016
|DecideDate=June 20
|DecideYear=2016
|FullName=David Anthony Taylor, Petitioner v. United States
|Docket=14–6166
|OpinionAnnouncement=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-6166_o7jp.pdf
|USVol=579
|USPage=___
|ParallelCitations=136 S. Ct. 2074; 195 L. Ed. 2d 456
|Prior=United States v. Taylor, 754 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140606075 217] (4th Cir. 2014)
|Subsequent=
|Holding=In a federal criminal prosecution under the Hobbs Act, the government is not required to prove an interstate commerce element beyond a reasonable doubt.
|SCOTUS=2016
|Majority=Alito
|JoinMajority=Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
|Dissent=Thomas
|LawsApplied=Hobbs Act
}}

Taylor v. United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in a federal criminal prosecution under the Hobbs Act, the government is not required to prove an interstate commerce element beyond a reasonable doubt.[1][2] The Court relied on the decision in Gonzales v. Raich which held that Congress has the authority to regulate the marijuana market given that even local activities can have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

Background

David Anthony Taylor performed two home-invasion robberies with the intent of stealing from two perceived marijuana dealers in Virginia. When initially tried in federal court, the jury deadlocked because of arguments that the marijuana in question was grown and intended for use within Virginia. Taylor was then retried where the judge precluded that line of argument and convicted. The high court upheld that conviction.

Opinion of the Court

Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion.[2]

References

1. ^SCOTUSblog coverage
2. ^Taylor v. United States, [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-6166_o7jp.pdf No. 14–6166], 579 U.S. ____ (2016).

External links

  • {{caselaw source

| case = Taylor v. United States, {{ussc|579|___|2016|el=no}}
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/14-6166/
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-6166
| other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion)
| other_url1 =https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-6166_o7jp.pdf
  • SCOTUSblog coverage
{{SCOTUS-case-stub}}

7 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court|2016 in United States case law|Hobbs Act case law|United States Commerce Clause case law|United States controlled substances case law|Cannabis law in the United States

随便看

 

开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。

 

Copyright © 2023 OENC.NET All Rights Reserved
京ICP备2021023879号 更新时间:2024/9/30 16:29:41