Citation network
Dean Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 29, 2009
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Dean v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 08-5274 (2009) Syllabus October Term, 2008 Dean V. UnitedSearch
-
Bates v. UnitedSearch
-
s use of the passive voice further indicates that subsection (iii) does not require proof of intent. Cf. Watson v. UnitedSearch
-
acts intentionally when including particular language in one section of a statute but not in another. Russello v. UnitedSearch
-
harm resulting from the manner in which the crime is carried out, for which the defendant is responsible. See Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., and Breyer, J., filed dissenting opinions. Dean v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 08-5274 (2009) Opinion of the Court Dean V. UnitedSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-5274 Christopher Michael Dean, Petitioner V. UnitedSearch
-
Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
the discharge be done knowingly or intentionally, or otherwise contain words of limitation. As we explained in Bates v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
s intent or culpability. Cf. Watson v. UnitedSearch
-
Russello v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
Staples v. UnitedSearch
-
Muscarello v. UnitedSearch
-
accident. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed. It is so ordered. Dean v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 08-5274 (2009) Stevens, J., Dissenting Dean V. UnitedSearch
-
imposing criminal penalties require proof of mens rea would lead to the same conclusion. Cf. United States v. X-CitementSearch
-
s relational terms convey that it does not reach inadvertent conduct. See Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
history also indicates that Congress intended to impose an enhanced penalty only for intentional discharge. In Bailey v. UnitedSearch
-
tradition, the requirement of mens rea has long been the rule of our criminal jurisprudence. See United States v. UnitedSearch
-
Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
discussing United States v. BalintSearch
-
Although mandatory minimum sentencing provisions are of too recent genesis to have any common-law pedigree, see Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
Bifulco v. UnitedSearch
-
Ladner v. UnitedSearch
-
To be sure, there are also inquiries for which the Court has said that sentencing provisions are different. In Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 536 U. S. 545 , 557 (2002) (plurality opinion), and McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
The logic of treating these provisions similarly is buttressed by our subsequent decision in United States v. BookerSearch
-
States - 08-5274 (2009) Breyer, J., Dissenting Dean V. UnitedSearch
-
to intentional, but not to accidental, discharges of firearms. As Justice Stevens points out, this Court in Bailey v. UnitedSearch
-
clear that the offender was not responsible and perhaps that the discharge put no one at risk. See, e.g., Koon v. UnitedSearch
-
sentencing judge, would ensure results that depart dramatically from those Congress would have intended. Cf. Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Watson v. UnitedSearch
-
See Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Dean V. UnitedSearch
-
Christopher Michael Dean, Petitioner V. UnitedSearch
-
Stevens, J., Dissenting Dean V. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. United States v. X-CitementSearch
-
See Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
In Bailey v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. UnitedSearch
-
In Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
and McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Breyer, J., Dissenting Dean V. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial