In 1971,as chief trial counsel,he formed a partnership with K.L. Shirk Jr. and Roger S. Reist. Buckwalter became an assistant district attorney for Lancaster County in 1970 and was district attorney from 1977 to 1980. He served as judge on the Court of Common Pleas from 1980 to 1990.
Congress had enacted the CDA to restrict and criminalize the transmission of "obscene or indecent" materials to minors. In three separate opinions,the three justices found two provisions of the CDA (sections 223[a] and sections 223[d]) to be unconstitutional because of their vagueness and their impact on internet communications with regard to the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment.
Buckwalter's opinion found that the word "indecent" was unconstitutionally vague,and the terms "in context" and "patently offensive" also were so vague as to violate the First and Fifth Amendments. To enforce these words would violate the "fundamental constitutional principle" of "simple fairness",as well as the First and Fifth Amendments.[3]
In response to the government's argument that the two provisions in question would be applied only to "pornographic" materials and would not be applied to materials with serious value,Buckwalter found that the CDA itself did not support the government's argument. "Indecency has not been defined to exclude works of serious literary,artistic,political or scientific value,and therefore the Government's suggestion that it will not be used to prosecute publishers of such material is without foundation in the law itself."[3]
After the district court's unanimous ruling that the CDA was unconstitutionally vague,the government appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's rulings on June 18,1997. A majority opinion,written by Justice Stevens,found the two provisions to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad,and infringed upon the right to free expression. Justice Stevens was joined by six other Justices (Scalia,Kennedy,Souter,Thomas,Ginsburg,and Breyer) to affirm the decision in full. Justice O'Connor and Chief Justice Rehnquist concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part.[4]
NCAA's Proposition 16: Another case that gained national attention was Cureton v. National College Athletic Association (E.D.P.A 1999). In this summary judgment (March 8,1999),Buckwalter discarded the NCAA's minimum test score requirement,as described in Proposition 16,in which incoming freshmen students were required to achieve a minimum score on either the SAT or ACT test as a condition of eligibility for freshmen athletics and/or athletically related financial aid.[5]
Buckwalter found that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited the NCAA's ineligibility rule because the rule had an unjustified disparate impact against African Americans. Buckwalter added that the NCAA's goal of improving graduation rates,which was the reason it instituted Proposition 16 in the first place,was not being served by the cutoff scores,and that meeting that goal could be achieved by other available methods.[5]
Buckwalter's summary judgment went on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit,where it was reversed on December 22,1999.[6]
Fraud in the State Senate: In 2008,Buckwalter was assigned to preside over the corruption trial of Pennsylvania State Senator Vincent J. Fumo. The jury found Fumo guilty of fraud and obstruction of justice. In July 2009,Buckwalter sentenced Fumo to 55 months in prison and $2.7 million in fines. The prosecutors and some media outlets,including The Philadelphia Inquirer,criticized the sentence as too lenient. Portions of the judgment were remanded for re-sentencing by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals,by a 2-1 vote,[7] after which Buckwalter increased the prison sentence to 61 months and increased the fines to $3.9 million.[8]
In the re-sentencing,The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Buckwalter stated that Fumo lacked "a true sense of remorse" and had a "complete lack of respect for our legal framework," but also noted that Fumo had not been accused of bribery,extortion,or a crime of violence. He stated the prosecution had overstepped Justice Department guidelines by charging the defendant with 137 criminal counts. Buckwalter varied from the federal advisory guidelines that called for a longer sentence,saying that the guidelines "did not fit the crimes". He pointed to Fumo's charitable acts when varying from the guidelines,saying that Fumo's charitable acts "neither justify nor excuse his crimes," but they did justify a variance from the guidelines.[8][9]
Related Research Articles
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the United States Congress's first notable attempt to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In the 1997 landmark case Reno v. ACLU,the United States Supreme Court struck the act's anti-indecency provisions.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union,521 U.S. 844 (1997),was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Two Justices concurred in part and dissented in part to the decision. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.
Vincent Joseph Fumo is a former politician,lawyer and businessman from Philadelphia,Pennsylvania. A Democrat,he represented a South Philadelphia district in the Pennsylvania Senate from 1978 to 2008. On March 16,2009,he was convicted of 137 federal corruption charges. On July 14,2009,he was sentenced to 55 months in federal prison.
United States v. Booker,543 U.S. 220 (2005),is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction,only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence,whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
In American constitutional law,a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand,and a constitutionally-protected interest cannot tolerate permissible activity to be chilled within the range of the vagueness. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague;in general,a statute might be void for vagueness when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated,what conduct is prohibited,or what punishment may be imposed. For example,criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions. Related to the "void for vagueness" concept is the "unconstitutional vagueness" concept. A law can be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First Amendment freedom of speech,assembly,or religion.
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union,535 U.S. 564 (2002),was a United States Supreme Court case involving the American Civil Liberties Union and the United States government regarding the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The unconstitutionality of the law was ultimately upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,while earlier injunctions against the law by that same court were at first dismissed by but later upheld by the Supreme Court. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) dealt with a similar law,the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA).
Dolores Korman Sloviter is an inactive Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Beginning in April 2016,she stopped hearing cases or matters before the court.
Mistretta v. United States,488 U.S. 361 (1989),is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of the United States Sentencing Commission.
Stewart Richard Dalzell was a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The Kansas Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in the state of Kansas. Composed of seven justices,led by Chief Justice Marla Luckert,the court supervises the legal profession,administers the judicial branch,and serves as the state court of last resort in the appeals process.
The term aggravated felony was created by the United States Congress as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to define a category of serious criminal offenses. It basically covers documented convictions from anywhere on Earth for which imposition of one year or longer of imprisonment was possible under the controlling law of a country or locality. The INA says that for asylum in the United States,any alien "convicted of an aggravated felony shall be considered to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime." Every legal immigrant or non-citizen U.S. national that has been convicted of any aggravated felony is ineligible for citizenship of the United States,and other than a refugee under INA section 207,8 U.S.C. § 1157,every alien who has been convicted of any aggravated felony is ineligible to receive a visa or be admitted to the United States,if his or her "term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years."
National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution –and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation –the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy,as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law,were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
Cradle of Liberty Council,Inc.,Boy Scouts of America,v. City of Philadelphia also known as Cradle of Liberty Council v. City of Philadelphia,[2:08-cv-02429RB] is a U.S. Court case involving the Cradle of Liberty Council versus the City of Philadelphia. The case was filed on May 23,2008,in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter presided over the case. The Boy Scouts were represented by Drinker Biddle &Reath. The case ended with the court ruling in favor of the Boy Scouts of America. The Cradle of Liberty Council Council is also entitled to collect $877,000 of legal costs from the city's unlawful action.
Nitke v. Gonzalez,413 F.Supp.2d 262 was a United States District Court for the Southern District of New York case regarding obscene materials published online. The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the obscenity provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). She claimed that it was overbroad when applied in the context of the Internet because certain contents deemed lawful in some communities and unlawful in others will be restricted due to the open access of the Internet. The plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the obscenity provision of the CDA. The court concluded that insufficient evidence was presented to show there was substantial variation in community standards,as applied in the "Miller test",and to show how much protected speech would actually be impaired because of these differences. The relief sought was denied,and the court ruled for the defendant. The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed this ruling without comment.
Coates v. City of Cincinnati,402 U.S. 611 (1971),is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a local city ordinance that made it a criminal offense for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and “annoy”any passersby was unconstitutionally vague. Dennis Coates participated in a protest along with four other unnamed students,all of whom were convicted of violating the city ordinance. Coates appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court,which upheld the conviction. However,this conviction was overturned in the divided United States Supreme Court decision. The Court found that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and violated the First Amendment freedom of assembly.
Geldenhuys v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down as unconstitutional a law which set the age of consent at 19 for homosexual sex but only 16 for heterosexual sex.
National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley,524 U.S. 569 (1998),was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act,as amended in 1990,,was facially valid,as it neither inherently interfered with First Amendment rights nor violated constitutional vagueness principles. The act in question required the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to ensure that "artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which [grant] applications are judged,taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public". Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
North Carolina v. Pearce,395 U.S. 711 (1969),is a United States Supreme Court case that forbids judicial “vindictiveness”from playing a role in the increased sentence a defendant receives after a new trial. In sum,due process requires that a defendant be “free of apprehension”of judicial vindictiveness. Time served for a new conviction of the same offense must be “fully credited,”and a trial judge seeking to impose a greater sentence on retrial must affirmatively state the reasons for imposing such a sentence.
Beckles v. United States,580 U.S. ___ (2017),was a case in which the United States Supreme Court evaluated whether the residual clause in the United States Advisory Sentencing Guidelines was unconstitutionally vague.
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case. The Court decided that the sentence imposed on the defendant was unconstitutional,in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution,furthermore,the court affirmed the principle that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were not mandatory.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
