|
gptkbp:instance_of
|
gptkb:court_cases
|
|
gptkbp:argued_on
|
2000-10-10
|
|
gptkbp:case_analysis
|
2000-01-01
important for legal scholars
discussed in law journals
debated in legal circles
examined legal definitions
affects future sentencing
|
|
gptkbp:case_number
|
01-1234
available in legal databases
involved issues of criminal intent
|
|
gptkbp:case_outcome
|
closed
affirmed lower court ruling
set precedent for future cases
reviewed by legal experts
influenced public policy
shaped future legislation
sufficient legal basis
|
|
gptkbp:case_significance
|
important for sentencing guidelines
|
|
gptkbp:case_types
|
appeal
|
|
gptkbp:consequences
|
influenced federal sentencing
|
|
gptkbp:court
|
gptkb:Washington,_D._C.
gptkb:United_States_District_Court
|
|
gptkbp:decided_by
|
gptkb:United_States_District_Court
published opinion
|
|
gptkbp:defendant_argument
|
challenged evidence
|
|
gptkbp:effective_date
|
2001-01-01
2001-01-15
|
|
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label
|
United States v. Nichols
|
|
gptkbp:involved_parties
|
gptkb:United_States
Nichols
|
|
gptkbp:is_cited_in
|
327 F.3d 1160
|
|
gptkbp:is_standardized_by
|
beyond a reasonable doubt
|
|
gptkbp:judges
|
gptkb:Judge_Smith
gptkb:Judge_Williams
Judge Johnson
|
|
gptkbp:jurisdiction
|
federal
|
|
gptkbp:legacy
|
remains a key case in criminal law
|
|
gptkbp:legal_context
|
federal criminal procedure
|
|
gptkbp:legal_issue
|
criminal law
sufficient evidence presented
|
|
gptkbp:legal_principle
|
due process
|
|
gptkbp:legal_representation
|
gptkb:lawyer
|
|
gptkbp:notable_for
|
interpretation of sentencing laws
|
|
gptkbp:outcome
|
conviction upheld
|
|
gptkbp:precedent
|
subsequent cases
|
|
gptkbp:related_cases
|
gptkb:United_States_v._Smith
gptkb:United_States_v._Jones
|
|
gptkbp:was_a_demonstration_of
|
circumstantial evidence
|
|
gptkbp:bfsParent
|
gptkb:Tenth_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals
gptkb:United_States_v._Mc_Veigh
|
|
gptkbp:bfsLayer
|
5
|