Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. James Bruguier

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided November 5, 2013No. 11-3634Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

MURPHY, Circuit Judge,

with whom

BYE, COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges, join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

From the time of the enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2) in 1986, until and after the panel opinion in United States v. Rouillard, 701 F.3d 861 (8th Cir.2012), our court has consistently accepted jury instructions which required proof both that the defendant knowingly engaged in a sexual act and that the victim was an incapacitated person. When this case was in the district court, Judge Karen Schreier heard arguments from opposing counsel before deciding to give the…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. United States v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  3. United States v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  4. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Rodriguez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

24 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