翻訳と辞書 ・ Whitfield Diffie
・ Whitfield Estates Subdivision MPS
・ Whitfield Estates-Broughton Street Historic District
・ Whitfield Estates-Lantana Avenue Historic District
・ Whitfield family
・ Whitfield family of the United States
・ Whitfield House
・ Whitfield Jack
・ Whitfield Lovell
・ Whitfield railway line
・ Whitfield railway station
・ Whitfield Records
・ Whitfield Reservoir
・ Whitfield School
・ Whitfield Street
・ Whitfield v. United States
・ Whitfield's ointment
・ Whitfield, Derbyshire
・ Whitfield, Dundee
・ Whitfield, Florida
・ Whitfield, Gloucestershire
・ Whitfield, Indiana
・ Whitfield, Jones County, Mississippi
・ Whitfield, Kent
・ Whitfield, Kentucky
・ Whitfield, Manatee County, Florida
・ Whitfield, Mississippi
・ Whitfield, Northamptonshire
・ Whitfield, Northumberland
・ Whitfield, Pennsylvania
|
|
| Whitfield v. United States ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Whitfield v. United States
Whitfield v. United States was a case that was decided 9-0 at the Supreme Court of the United States on January 13, 2015. The case concerned whether the forced accompaniment statute under applies when a bank, credit union, or savings/loan association robber, or attempted robber, forces someone to accompany them for any distance. Defense attorney Joshua B. Carpenter argued on behalf of the Petitioner, and Assistant to the Solicitor General Brian H. Fletcher argued on behalf of the Department of Justice.
==Background==
On September 26, 2008, Larry Whitfield and Quanterrious McCoy attempted to rob a credit union, but were foiled when a metal detector at the entrance went off. The two would-be robbers fled the scene, first by a getaway vehicle that crashed, then by foot. The two ditched their weapons in a wooded area before McCoy hid under a nearby van and Whitfield broke into the home of Mary Parnell, a 79-year-old grandmother with a history of heart disease and high blood pressure. Whitfield tried to assure Parnell he did not intend to hurt her, but asked her to come with him to another area of the house - a room where they could not be seen by the police. When Whitfield tried to call a friend for a new getaway vehicle, Parnell panicked, had a heart attack, and died.
Whitfield was indicted on multiple counts related to the attempted robbery, including under section 2113(e) for forcing Parnell to "accompany" him from one part of her house to another. At his trial, the jury instructions mentioned that "the term 'forced accompaniment' includes() forcing a person to move from one part of a building to another against her will" and "does not require ... that the defendant crossed a property line, moved a person a particular number of feet, held a person for a particular period of time, or placed the person at a certain level of danger."〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Larry WHITFIELD, Defendant–Appellant. )〕 Whitfield plead "not guilty" to force accompaniment but a jury convicted him for the offense.
On appeal, Whitfield's legal team argued the word "accompany" pursuant to section 2113(e) requires a "substantial" amount of forced movement, and because Whitfield had only forced Parnell to accompany him from one room to another (a distance of less than 10 feet) the evidence in this case did not qualify. The Fourth Circuit heard the appeal but affirmed the initial judgement on the offense. In writing for the Court, Judge King stated, "()lthough Whitfield required Mrs. Parnell to accompany him for only a short distance within her own home, and for a brief period, no more is required to prove that a forced accompaniment occurred."〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Larry WHITFIELD, Defendant–Appellant. )〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Whitfield v. United States」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|