Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court's October Term 2018 Contains Hints of Things to Come
In Part One of this article last month, we discussed several of the key business crimes cases from the recently concluded October Term 2018. We resume this discussion in Part Two of our article and offer some concluding thoughts about where the Court may go next in the years to come.
United States v. Haymond: Apprendi Continues to Impact Sentencing
Some 20 years ago, the Supreme Court held in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 491-92 (2000) that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum (other than the existence of a prior conviction) must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. As United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), demonstrates, Apprendi continues to cast a long shadow over criminal proceedings.
Following his conviction for possession of child pornography, Haymond completed a prison sentence. He was serving a ten-year term of supervised release when government officials discovered what appeared to be images of child pornography on his cell phone. Following a hearing for the revocation of Haymond's supervised release, the judge found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Haymond had knowingly possessed some of the images. Under 18 U.S.C. §3583(k), possession of child pornography during a period of supervised release carries a mandatory five-year term of imprisonment, and, so, Haymond received an additional five-year sentence. The Tenth Circuit held that the procedure contemplated in Section 3583(k) — that is, a mandatory five-year prison term for violation of supervised release, as determined by a judge under the "preponderance of the evidence" standard — violated the defendant's right to a trial by jury.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.