18 U.S.C. § 2193
Revolt or mutiny of seamen
Whoever, being of the crew of a vessel of the United States, on the high seas, or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, unlawfully and with force, or by fraud, or intimidation, usurps the command of such vessel from the master or other lawful officer in command thereof, or deprives him of authority and command on board, or resists or prevents him in the free and lawful exercise thereof, or transfers such authority and command to another not lawfully entitled thereto, is guilty of a revolt and mutiny, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1987–2019 · leading case: United States v. Billy Eugene Gossett, Jr., United States of Am. v. William Rector, 877 F.2d 901 (11th Cir. 1989).
United States v. Billy Eugene Gossett, Jr., United States of Am. v. William Rector, 877 F.2d 901 (11th Cir. 1989). “Gossett’s claim that the admission of the Captain’s wallet and photographs was prejudicial, and Rector’s claims that the district court failed to conduct sufficient voir dire on the effect of pre-trial publicity on the potential jurors, and that the court erred in allowing the…”
United States v. Goodridge, 392 F. Supp. 3d 159 (D.D.C. 2019). “2002) (explaining that "[t]he House committee report stated the purpose of the amendment was 'to overrule those cases holding that only the Hobbs Act applies [to extortion of a bank], and those cases holding that both the Hobbs Act and 18 U.S.C. § 2193 (a) apply, in order to…”
United States v. Kenneth Eugene Holloway, 309 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2002). “The House committee report stated the purpose of the amendment was “to overrule those cases holding that only the Hobbs Act applies [to extortion of a bank], and those cases holding that both the Hobbs Act and 18 U.S.C. § 2193 (a) apply, in order to make 18 U.”
United States v. Frederick G. Norton, 808 F.2d 908 (1st Cir. 1987). “§ 2118 (robbery involving controlled substance) 18 U.S.C. § 2193 (mutiny at sea) 18 U.S.C.”
United States v. Leonard Overstreet, Glen E. Garner, & Dominic L. Warren, 106 F.3d 1354 (7th Cir. 1997). “There is no illogical or unreasonable barrier, notwithstanding the major difference in circumstances, between the discipline nee- *1357 essary on board a ship or the discipline necessary in a penal institution to protect the governing authority.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.