Legal Opinion

United States v. Williams

District Court, D. Hawaii

Decided March 6, 2014No. Crim. No. 06-00079 JMS-KSCPublished

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER REGARDING “MALICE AFORETHOUGHT” IN COUNTS ONE AND TWO OF THE SECOND SUPERCEDING INDICTMENT

J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

In this capital felony-murder case, Defendant Naeem J. Williams (“Defendant”) seeks a ruling prior to opening statements that “malice aforethought” is a necessary element of the felony murder Counts (Counts One and Two) of the Second Superseding Indictment (“Indictment”). The court disagrees based on Ninth Circuit precedent directly on point. See United States v. Miguel, 338 F.3d 995, 1004-05 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Schad v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Schmuck v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. United States v. Manuel Flores, United States of America v. Juan Raul GarzaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
  4. United States v. ChanthadaraCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000
  5. United States v. Daniel Joe ChischillyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API