Claude
ChatGPT
PerplexityBrady v. Maryland
The prosecution must disclose favorable, material evidence — the foundation of criminal discovery practice.
Practice Area Spotlight
Criminal Litigation
Criminal lawyers use Midpage to research offenses, suppression, trial rights, sentencing, and post-conviction review — federal and state. The statutes, rules, and case law behind that work are collected below.
How Criminal Lawyers Use Midpage
Browse to see how Midpage works through criminal-law questions from real lawyers.
Felon in Possession After RahimiCan a felon-in-possession charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) be challenged on Second Amendment grounds after Bruen and Rahimi — and does it matter that the prior felony was nonviolent?Compassionate Release After RutherfordWhat qualifies as an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)? Can a defendant serving a decades-long sentence that would be much shorter if imposed today seek release on that basis?Geofence Warrants After ChatrieThe government identified a suspect through a geofence warrant served on Google. What Fourth Amendment challenges are available to that kind of evidence, and how have courts been ruling?Obstruction After FischerWhat conduct still supports an obstruction-of-an-official-proceeding charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) after Fischer v. United States?ACCA Occasions After ErlingerHow does Erlinger v. United States change ACCA sentencing where the defendant’s prior offenses may have been committed on separate occasions — and what does it mean for defendants who were already sentenced?Substitute Experts After Smith v. ArizonaThe analyst who performed the lab testing is unavailable to testify. Can the prosecution call a different forensic expert in their place, or does the Confrontation Clause bar that after Smith v. Arizona?Fraudulent Inducement After KousisisCan a defendant be convicted of wire fraud when the alleged victim received everything it paid for and suffered no financial loss? How does Kousisis v. United States bear on that question?
Core Criminal Law Collections
The statutes, rules, and courts behind criminal practice.
Statutes
The federal offenses that drive white-collar, firearms, and drug dockets — plus the sentencing, bail, speedy-trial, and habeas provisions that structure every stage of the case, and the state anchors for post-conviction practice.
| Mail & wire fraud The property-fraud workhorses — bounded by Kelly, Ciminelli, and the fraudulent-inducement rule of Kousisis | 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 |
| Hobbs Act Robbery and extortion affecting commerce — a lead predicate in § 924(c) litigation | 18 U.S.C. § 1951 |
| RICO Pattern-of-racketeering liability for enterprises — the prohibited-activities core | 18 U.S.C. § 1962 |
| Money laundering Concealment and promotion laundering of criminal proceeds | 18 U.S.C. § 1956 |
| Obstruction Witness tampering and evidence impairment — § 1512(c)(2) narrowed by Fischer | 18 U.S.C. § 1512 |
Rules & Regulations
The federal rules of criminal procedure and evidence, searchable in the U.S. Code appendices — plus the DEA schedules and the Bureau of Prisons rules; the Sentencing Guidelines Manual is on the way.
| Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Pleas, discovery, and post-trial motions — Rule 16 reflects the 2023 expert-disclosure amendments | Fed. R. Crim. P. |
| Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 404(b) character evidence and the 2023 reliability amendment to Rule 702 | Fed. R. Evid. |
Agency Decisions & Guidance
The Justice Manual’s charging and prosecution policies are searchable now — Sentencing Commission actions surface through the Federal Register.
| DOJ Justice Manual Charging, plea, and prosecution policies — including the Title 9 criminal provisions | Guidance |
| DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinionsComing soon OLC’s controlling legal opinions for the executive branch | Guidance |
Courts & Tribunals
The forums where criminal cases are litigated — direct review, then the collateral channels that are litigated in court.
| Appellate U.S. Supreme Court and all 13 federal circuits — direct appeals and habeas; state supreme and intermediate appellate courts, including the Texas and Oklahoma Courts of Criminal Appeals |
| Trial U.S. District Courts — suppression, trial, and sentencing; state trial courts across all 50 states |
| Post-conviction Section 2254 and 2255 proceedings in the federal courts, and state collateral review under vehicles like C.P.L. § 440.10 and article 11.07 |
Key Cases
The controlling authorities — linked to full text, treatment, and citing decisions in Midpage.
Strickland v. Washington
Ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice — the two-prong standard for every IAC claim.
Apprendi v. New Jersey
Any fact increasing the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Crawford v. Washington
Testimonial hearsay is barred absent unavailability and prior cross-examination — the modern Confrontation Clause framework.
United States v. Booker
The mandatory Guidelines fell to the Sixth Amendment — district courts sentence under advisory Guidelines and § 3553(a).
Carpenter v. United States
Acquiring historical cell-site location information is a Fourth Amendment search — the digital-privacy turning point.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen
Firearms regulation must be consistent with historical tradition — the test now applied to every federal and state gun statute.
United States v. Rahimi
Section 922(g)(8) survives — historical analogues need only be relevantly similar, softening Bruen’s test.
Erlinger v. United States
A jury, not the judge, must find ACCA’s different-occasions element unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Smith v. Arizona
Substitute-expert basis testimony conveying an absent analyst’s statements for their truth triggers the Confrontation Clause.
Fischer v. United States
Section 1512(c)(2) reaches only impairment of records, documents, or objects used in an official proceeding.
Kousisis v. United States
Fraudulent inducement supports wire-fraud liability even without intended net economic loss to the victim.
Rutherford v. United States
Nonretroactive sentencing changes can never be extraordinary and compelling reasons for release — § 1B1.13(b)(6) invalidated to that extent.
Chatrie v. United States
Obtaining Google Location History is a Fourth Amendment search — Carpenter extended to geofence data, with no short-duration grace period.