Legal Opinion

United States v. Parks

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided August 23, 2005No. 2:03 CR 213PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

HOLSCHUH, District Judge.

This matter is currently before the Court on Defendant Jabrown Parks’ “motion to include an actus reus or criminal conduct requirement, a malice aforethought mens rea requirement, and a proximate cause requirement in the ‘kill’ element of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e) 1 or, in the alternative, to declare § 2113(e) unconstitutional as applied to him” (Record at 44), and on Defendant’s related motion for a bill of particulars on Count 3 of the indictment (Record at 31, 32). 2 For the reasons stated below, the motion concerning § 2113(e) is granted in part and…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  3. Russell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Dennis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. ParksCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
  2. United States v. TollefsonDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2019
  3. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Department of the InteriorDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020
  4. United States v. ParksCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
  5. United States v. ParksCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API