The court added that if the legislative history fails to clarify the statute, the «rule
of lenity» compels construction in favor of the defendants.
In addition to the rule
of lenity, the application of the plain meaning rule to the CFAA results in it potentially being unconstitutionally vague.
However, if in doing so, the court runs afoul of the «clear and definitive language» rule and the rule
of lenity, then that presumption should be rebutted.
Don't rule
of lenity and / or constitutional doubt doctrines suggest that the SRA should now be interpreted to disallow such enhancements?
Not exact matches
«Jury nullification is the de facto ability
of the jury to refuse to apply the law as instructed by the court, choosing instead to acquit out
of compassion or compromise or because
of the jury's assumption
of a power which they had no right to exercise, but to which they were disposed through
lenity.»