eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)

What are the implications of the United States v. Raynor and Same v. Fowler court cases on modern-day criminal law and procedures in the United States?

The Dyer Act, which was the basis for Raynor's conviction, was enacted in 1903 and made it a federal crime to transport a stolen motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce.

(Fact-based)

The Dyer Act was amended in 1926 to include the provision that any papers of the United States, including currency, bonds, and securities, would have a distinctive paper or mark to distinguish them from counterfeits.

(Scientific: paper mintage)

In United States v.

Raynor, the Supreme Court held that the distinctive paper or mark on United States currency was sufficient evidence of the currency's authenticity, even if it was not possible to verify the exact process by which the paper was made.

(Scientific: Paper authentication)

The Raynor case established the principle that alleged possession of currency cannot be used to infer criminal intent, and that the government must prove that the defendant knew or should have known that the currency was stolen.

(Legal: Intent)

The United States v.

Raynor case involved the conviction of Ross B.

Raynor for possessing four $20 bills that were determined to be counterfeit.

(Historical: Counterfeiting)

The case of United States v.

Fowler involved the defendant's failure to comply with the Selective Service Act, which required men of a certain age to register for the draft.

(Historical: Draft)

The Fowler case illustrated the concept of "constructive notice" in judicial proceedings, whereby a defendant is deemed to have knowledge of the law or facts if they would have discovered them through reasonable inquiry.

(Legal: Constructive Notice)

The circuit court held that the distinctive paper used for United States obligations and securities was a piece of rag bond paper with a sharp rattle and fine silk fibers.

(Scientific: Paper properties)

In the case United States v.

Rivera, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a plea agreement that prohibited appeals of the sentence imposed by the district court and the court of appeals did not constitute a waiver of a known right.

(Legal: Plea Agreements)

The case United States v.

Bolin involved the waiver of an unknown right, as the defendant agreed to a plea agreement that prohibited appeals of the sentence imposed by the district court and the court of appeals.

(Legal: Waiver of Rights)

eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)