FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1567649497> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1567649497 startingPage "985" @default.
• W1567649497 abstract "INTRODUCTION In the last fifty years, two developments transformed federal criminal law. First, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (1) in 1970, allowing federal prosecutors to convict those who use enterprises to patterns of racketeering (2) Second, the United States Sentencing Commission promulgated the federal Sentencing Guidelines in 1987, (3) providing a complex framework intended to create uniformity while still preserving judges' power to consider the unique characteristics of each crime and defendant. Both developments have enhanced the power of federal prosecutors. RICO allows prosecutors to achieve elevated sentences for convicted racketeers and to seize the proceeds of racketeering (4) Because the Sentencing Guidelines reduce the discretion of the judge and place increased weight on the charges that the prosecutor brings, they give the prosecutor greater influence over a defendant's final sentence. (5) Although scholars have studied both RICO and the Sentencing Guidelines in depth, very little has been written about the ways in which the two frameworks interact. This Note highlights a potential prosecutorial abuse at the intersection of RICO and the Sentencing Guidelines; specifically, how a weak RICO charge can create an unfair advantage over a defendant who is acquitted of that charge but is still convicted of at least one other count. Because this strategy involves two complex statutory frameworks, this Note requires a detailed overview of both the RICO Act and the current regime; this is necessary to clearly demonstrate how a faulty RICO indictment can be used to conceptually tie together otherwise unrelated acts and achieve an increased sentence under conduct sentencing. Part I will describe the United States Sentencing Guidelines, focusing on the concept of conduct sentencing. Part II will discuss the key concepts of RICO, looking closely at the relatedness requirement for a RICO of racketeering activity. Part III will demonstrate how a prosecutor could use a weak RICO charge and allege a of racketeering activity to connect two unrelated acts to one another, in order to argue later that these unrelated acts were part of the same course of or for the purposes of relevant sentencing. This Part will examine the corruption trial of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman to illustrate how RICO's pattern concept can lead to post-trial confusion when evaluating a defendant's common scheme of conduct at sentencing. Part IV will argue that a prosecutor who intentionally confuses these concepts to gain leverage behaves both unethically and in a manner contrary to the purposes of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. As a result, this Note will recommend that judges be informed of this problem and that the Department of Justice prohibit this use of RICO indictments as part of its already-established RICO oversight process. I. THE FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND RELEVANT CONDUCT A. Historical Overview In 1984, Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. (6) The Sentencing Reform Act established a seven-member Sentencing Commission to draft Sentencing Guidelines that would take effect in late 1987. (7) The Sentencing Reform Act had as its twin goals achieving honesty in sentencing and eliminating unjustifiably wide disparity. (8) Tasked with these goals, the Commission set out to transform a byzantine and chaotic array of federal criminal statutes into a transparent, consistent, and equitable system. At their core, the Sentencing Guidelines are a struggle between a regime and a charge-offense system. (9) In a real-offense system, the prosecutor brings charges under a particular federal criminal statute. …" @default.
• W1567649497 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1567649497 creator A5091119574 @default.
• W1567649497 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W1567649497 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1567649497 title "Could You Use That in a Sentence, Please? the Intersection of Prosecutorial Ethics, Relevant Conduct Sentencing, and Criminal RICO Indictments" @default.
• W1567649497 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W1567649497 type Work @default.
• W1567649497 sameAs 1567649497 @default.
• W1567649497 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1567649497 countsByYear W15676494972014 @default.
• W1567649497 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1567649497 hasAuthorship W1567649497A5091119574 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C158129432 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C163258240 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C202565627 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C2776034101 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C2777530160 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C2777632292 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C2778985074 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C2779263217 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C2780262971 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C121332964 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C144024400 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C154945302 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C158129432 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C163258240 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C17744445 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C199539241 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C202565627 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C2776034101 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C2777530160 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C2777632292 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C2778985074 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C2779263217 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C2780262971 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C41008148 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C62520636 @default.
• W1567649497 hasConceptScore W1567649497C73484699 @default.
• W1567649497 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1567649497 hasLocation W15676494971 @default.
• W1567649497 hasOpenAccess W1567649497 @default.
• W1567649497 hasPrimaryLocation W15676494971 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W1563008469 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W1601161303 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W1933591571 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W2151681584 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W2256643088 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W2331150442 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W2350015035 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W2389928852 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W2945871889 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W2979735754 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W298728239 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W3122539878 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W3123120429 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W3124549475 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W3124729978 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W3163232635 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W333058822 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W49100708 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W95335930 @default.
• W1567649497 hasRelatedWork W3125746789 @default.
• W1567649497 hasVolume "89" @default.
• W1567649497 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1567649497 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1567649497 magId "1567649497" @default.
• W1567649497 workType "article" @default.