How Real is a Facebook Threat?

The Supreme Court agreed in June 2014 to hear the case of Elonis v. United States, an important First Amendment challenge that will attempt to clarify after years of ambiguity and split decisions in the lower courts the question of when threats, specifically internet threats, should be taken seriously by the law.  The case will be heard on December 1^st of this year, and will clarify whether threats of violence made on social media sites such as Facebook, should be judged by (1) whether the speaker intended to harm anyone, or (2) whether the recipient was genuinely afraid of being harmed.  Essentially, it is a decision that will decide whether the crime should be judged by the actor’s subjective intent or the target’s subjective belief.

Online death threats are becoming all too common.  Recent examples include an 11-year-old who faced death threats through Facebook over his love of hunting, a mayor whose life was threatened by his paper boy, and hundreds of Harvard students who received emails from a sender who threatened to “shoot all of you” and “kill you individually.”

Kevin Martin: Innocent.

Kevin Martin

In order to ensure justice and credence in our legal system, a series of checks and balances are in place.  Nowhere are these checks and balances so essential than in the criminal justice system.  In 1982, a seventeen-year-old boy named Kevin Martin was sent to prison for over twenty-six years for a rape homicide that he did not commit based on misrepresented FBI hair analysis.  Although Mr. Martin’s claim to innocence has finally been publically and scientifically acknowledged, there are still many questions left unanswered.

Prosecutorial Discretion: When Is Enforcement Discriminatory?

Dinesh D'Souza

In criminal law, those accused of wrongdoing typically claim innocence and maintain that they have done nothing wrong.  But what about when an individual admits to the crime itself while arguing that the enforcement of the specific law against him is discriminatory in nature?

Cryptocurrencies And Criminal Activity: What Should Be Done About Bitcoin?

In 2009, computer programmer Satoshi Nakamoto created an open source peer-to-peer digital currency known as “Bitcoin.”  As such, Bitcoin has no physical manifestation and removes the need for third-party intermediaries (e.g., PayPal or Visa).  In addition, because it is peer-to-peer, its controlling computer code is open to public view.  However, the unique feature of Bitcoin is that it is the world’s first completely decentralized digital-payments system, meaning that no government or central authority has control over Bitcoin.  Businesses and venture capitalists have both taken notice of the potential promise of Bitcoin, and so too have criminals.

Inaccurate Background Checks: An Expunction of Job Opportunities?

For criminal defenders an acquittal usually means a job well done.  However, some acquitted defendants can still suffer from their interactions with the criminal justice system, due to the increasing reliance of potentially inaccurate FBI background checks.  These individuals can see their future job opportunities limited because an arrest can remain on their criminal record without an explanation.  An incomplete or incorrect background check can drastically impair a person’s ability to find or hold a job, especially when FBI background checks often fail to report the final outcome of an arrest.  Therefore, those who have been arrested, but have not been charged with a crime, suffer merely for their brief interaction with the criminal justice system.  For these reasons, when faced with a client who is acquitted or arrested and not charged, criminal defense attorneys must aggressively move to expunge arrest records to prevent a future detriment to a client from an inaccurate background check.

Corruption in the Courtroom

Judges play an important role in the criminal justice system.  They are the only party in the system that must remain completely neutral.  Because judges remain neutral, we entrust them with various decisions that can affect the outcome of a case, such as ruling on motions relating to the admissibility of evidence and determining whether there is sufficient probable cause for warrants.  To ensure these issues are decided in the fairest manner, it is crucial that judges do not have a stake in the litigation presented before them.