A federal statute designed to stop organized crime enumerated certain activities as crimes and provided that, in addition to cha
rging these activities as the crimes they constitute, the activities would also constitute the criminal act of intentional furtherance of the goals of organized crime. Among the enumerated activities was the interstate distribution of cocaine. The statute’s constitutionality has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The defendant was arrested by federal agents after having driven a truck containing cocaine from Florida to Illinois, where he delivered his illicit cargo as directed. At trial, the defendant is convicted of interstate distribution of cocaine in violation of federal law, and convicted of a violation of the federal statute above. How may the defendant be sentenced?
The meeting shown in the question above managed to violate two statutes, according to the statute developed to combat organized crime, in addition to violating the study that prohibits interstate drug transport. In that case, the convict must be tried for two infractions in different statutes and if convicted he must be convicted based on the guidelines of the two statutes.
The Supreme Court has ruled defendants have a right to due process under the law and cannot be denied the right to an attorney, nor illegal evidence used against them.
The physical presence of an out-of-state party in a particular state meets the required minimum contacts prerequisites and establishes personal jurisdiction.
