state v brechon case brief

Whether the claim of trespass fails as a matter of law. State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745, 751 (Minn.1984); see also In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 . You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. When citing it in your papers, make sure you reference it correspondingly, Don't use plagiarized sources. In Hoyt, this court expressly did not decide whether claim of right is an element of or a defense to the offense. state also sought to preclude defendants from asserting a "claim of right" defense. It is "fundamental that criminal defendants have a due process right to explain their conduct to a jury." We held in Paige that the phrase "without a permit" in a statute created an exception to the prohibition against possession of pistols in certain places. 2831, 2840, 49 L.Ed.2d 788 (1976). View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. What do you make of the "immigrant paradox"? Appellants contend they enjoyed the right to make a private arrest for violation of Minn.Stat. Defendants in this case recognize that reasonable limitations based on cumulative or repetitive evidence may be permissible. Fixation Regression Compulsion Retroversion, Read the case study and then answer the questions that follow. [1] The state is required to bear its burden of proof before the defendants determine whether or not they will offer any evidence and, if so, what evidence they will offer. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-. The trial court may not require defendants to make a pretrial offer of proof on the claim of right issue. There has been no trial, so there are no facts before us. We sell only unique pieces of writing completed according to your demands. State v. Quinnell, 277 Minn. 63, 151 N.W.2d 598 (1967), involved the issue whether defendant's misdemeanor arrest was valid. 629.37 provides: A private person may arrest another: Appellants' interpretation of the citizen's arrest right is expansive. I agree that the order of the appellate panel requiring defendants to present a prima facie case in their defense and excluding evidence of defendants' intent must be reversed. 609.605 (West 2017). at 649, 79 S.E. Id. The trial court did not rule on the necessity defense. The court may not require a pretrial offer of proof in order to decide as a matter of law that defendants have no claim of right. State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745, 750 (Minn.1984) (holding that a claim of right in a criminal trespass . We deem it fundamental that criminal defendants have a due process right to explain their conduct to a jury. 2. Such testimony of an individual defendant's own state of mind, of her or his motive, belief or intention in doing the act charged as criminal, is relevant, admissible evidence. 1068, 1072, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). Finally, the defendant exposes himself to what the prosecution hopes will be a piercing cross examination that shatters the defendant's case, makes the defendant's stated excuse for the charged act appear foolish and unbelievable, and aids the prosecution in obtaining a conviction. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273, 68 S. Ct. 499, 507, 92 L. Ed. Get Your Custom Essay on, We'll send you the first draft for approval by, Choose the number of pages, your academic level, and deadline. When a defendant takes the stand in a criminal case, it is a powerful personal choice with far reaching consequences. Subjective reasons not related to a claimed property right or permission are irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of claim of right. If the defendant has a claim of right, he lacks the criminal intent which is the gravamen of the offense. Appellants had at least a color of claim of right. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975). "Claim of right" in a criminal trespass case under Minn.Stat. The district court granted judgement for the cooperative. The court should exclude irrelevant testimony and make other rulings on admissibility as the trial proceeds. As a general rule in the field of criminal law, defendants. denied, 459 U.S. 1147, 103 S. Ct. 789, 74 L. Ed. 2. Thus, in a criminal trespass case the state must present evidence from which it is reasonable to infer that the defendant has no legal claim of right to be on the premises where the trespass is alleged to have occurred. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Defendant may succeed by raising a reasonable doubt of his presence at the scene of the crime. for rev. 2. In Hoyt, this court expressly did not decide whether claim of right is an element of or a defense to the offense. We deem it fundamental that criminal defendants have a due process right to explain their conduct to a jury. 3. In a criminal trespass case, similarly, the state may not shift to the accused the burden of proving claim of right because to do so would contravene the principle that the state must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, appellants argue the trial court unduly restricted their right to testify as to their motivation. C7-97-1381 United States Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) March 11, 1999 at 886 n. 2. However, evidentiary matters await completion of the state's case. Appellants admit they were on the premises of Planned Parenthood and that they refused to depart when officials of Planned Parenthood, the lawful possessor, demanded they leave. Second, the court must determine whether the trial court or the jury should decide if defendants have a valid claim of right. State v. Brechon. [3] The district court appellate panel ruled that defendants must establish the four elements of a necessity defense outlined in United States v. Seward, 687 F.2d 1270 (10th Cir.1982), cert. The strength of our democratic society lies in our adherence to constitutional guarantees of the rights of the people, including the right to a fair trial and the right to give testimony in one's own behalf. Include your preferred formatting style when you order from us to accompany your paper. 2d 368 (1970). Although defendant had not raised the issue, the court found no evidence that defendant had a claim of right. 1. As a result of complaints about the patient's care made by Hoyt to nursing home personnel and outside agencies, she was forbidden by the nursing home administration to visit the patient. Therefore, defendant need not prove his alibi beyond a reasonable doubt or even by a preponderance of the evidence. In State v.Hunt, 630 S.W.2d 211 (Mo.Ct.App. The existence of criminal intent is a question of fact that must be submitted to a jury. Appellants enjoyed legal remedies without committing a trespass. Warren No. CA2006-01-007, 2007-Ohio-2298. The trespass statute at issue was a strict liability statute. In State v. Hoyt, 304 N.W.2d 884 (Minn.1981), defendant Hoyt sought to visit a brain-damaged patient at a nursing home. In pre-trial motion proceedings the trial court was asked to exclude evidence offered to establish a necessity defense or a claim of right defense. 145.412, subd. This was not borne out by words or deeds during the trespass activity. at 306-07, 126 N.W.2d at 398. Brechon was not a classic common law trespass case where a poacher hunts the king's land or a stranger cuts through the farmer's hay field. Neither party has produced for the court any authority to support appellants' interpretation of private arrest powers. There is evidence that the protesters informed police there were felonies occurring inside the building, however, they asked police to investigate. Appellants offered to prove that abortions are being performed at Planned Parenthood in violation of these statutes. Second, the court must determine whether the trial court or the jury should decide if defendants have a valid claim of right. 288 (1952). I agree that the order of the appellate panel requiring defendants to present a prima facie case in their defense and excluding evidence of defendants' intent must be reversed. 1978). 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. Second, the court must determine whether the trial court or the jury should decide if defendants have a valid claim of right. I also believe, however, a careful reading of the spirit and letter of Brechon admonishes the trial court to be cautious in cutting off admissible evidence on intent merely because it remotely resembles other evidence previously offered. Among those jurisdictions that define claim of right as defendant's reasonable belief in a right to enter the property, it is usually assumed that claim of right is a defense. Appeal from the District Court, Ramsey County, Otis H. Godfrey, Jr., J. Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. MINN. STAT. Other means are available to protesters, including their constitutionally protected right to peacefully picket, assemble, and speak against a Planned Parenthood Clinic. 682 (1948). Get State v. Doub, 95 P.3d 116 (2004), Kansas Court of Appeals, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc. They claim this statute gives them a claim of right to enter the property for the purposes of exercising their citizen's arrest rights. 2 | Garrett Case Brief #1Citation: State v. Brechon352 N. W. 2d 745 (1984) Parties: State of Minnesotta - DefendantJohn Brechon and Scott Carpenter - Plaintiff's Facts/Procedural History: Appellants were arrested at Honeywell corporate headquarters inMinneapolis charged with trespassing. Thus, Hoyt had presented a prima facie case of claim of right; that is, a reasonable belief that she had license or permission to visit. Id. Contrary to Brechon, here the trial court decided for itself the issue of claim of right, kept appellants' offered evidence from the jury, and refused appellants' requested jury instruction on a claim of right. Defendants may not be precluded from testifying about their intent. August 3, 1984. Quinnell's arrest arose from his participation in a demonstration of livestock farmers at the St. Paul Union Stockyards Company. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. In addition, while the protesters may have delayed abortions, conduct they believed much more dangerous than their own, there is no evidence abortions were actually prevented by the trespass. We find it necessary first to clarify the procedural effect of the "claim of right" language in the trespass statute under which these defendants were arrested. The state presented evidence regarding the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension's investigation of the shooting, as well as forensic evidence collected at the It makes no difference that good motive is not a defense, that favorable instructions may not be given or that an explanation may be unavailing, these defendants must be given the opportunity to testify fully and freely on the issue of criminal intent and the motive underlying that intent. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 274, 72 S.Ct. See State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745 (Minn.1984) (defendant may offer evidence that he has a property right such as owner, tenant, lessee, licensee or invitee); State v. Hoyt, 304 N.W.2d 884 (Minn.1981) (statute may give person licensee status). STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. John BRECHON and Scott Carpenter, et al., petitioners, Appellants. If the state fails to offer evidence which by reasonable inference negates the defendant's claim of right, the issue of intent to trespass is never reached, since the criminal complaint must be dismissed. The evidence showed that defendant entered by . Minn.Stat. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 vote reversed the trial court and held that "without claim of right" is an affirmative defense, that defendant's testimony as to beliefs is irrelevant, that a necessity defense may not be raised at trial, and that a pretrial offer of proof must be made as to the claim of right or justification defense. 2d 884 (1981). 304 N.W.2d at 891. The trial judge properly viewed this additional testimony as cumulative and beyond the broad parameters of testimony permitted under Brechon. *747 Mark S. Wernick, Linda Gallant, Minneapolis, Kenneth E. Tilsen, St. Paul, for appellants. I respectfully dissent. Prior to trial the state moved to prevent defendants from presenting evidence pertaining to necessity or justification defenses unless certain conditions were met. State v. Hoyt, 304 N.W. While the trial court may impose reasonable limits on the testimony of each defendant, id. During trial, the court limited evidence on the two defenses. Id. Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc. 1976); see also Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 66-67, 96 S.Ct. Williams v. United States, 138 F.2d 81, 81-82 (D.C.Cir.1943). Brechon 352 N.W2d 745 (1984)325 N.W.2d 745 (Minn. 1984)ISSUE:Trespasses upon the premises of another and without claim of right refuses to departtherefrom on demand of the lawful possessor thereofFACTS:The test for determining what constitutes a basis element of rather than an exceptionto a statute has been stated as "whether the exception is so Because we find neither factor present here, we refuse to place the burden of proving "claim of right" on these defendants. The parties frame the issue as whether the state has the burden to prove the defendants did not have a claim of right to be on Honeywell property or whether defendants have the initial burden of going forward to present a prima facie case of claim of right. Appellants were arrested at Honeywell corporate headquarters in Minneapolis and charged with trespassing. 1982), the court held on motion for rehearing that proof of license or privilege is not an affirmative defense but evidence disproving an unlawful entry. 561.09 (West 2017). Minnesota's trespass statute reads in part: Minn.Stat. The Schoon court determined as a matter of law that the necessity defense is unavailable regarding acts of indirect civil disobedience. Synopsis of Rule of Law. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273, 68 S.Ct. 761 (1913), where the court stated: Id. There has been no trial, so there are no facts before us. 647, 79 S.E. Courts must scrutinize with the greatest care any restrictions on a defendant's testimony offered in that defendant's own behalf as to his or her intent and the motivation underlying that intent lest we jeopardize the federal and state constitutional right to a fair trial. This is a criminal case. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. 609.605(5) (1982) is not a defense but an essential element of the state's case. The. Defendants have denied any intention to raise a necessity defense. 647, 79 S.E. JIG 7.06 (1990). The state appealed and the defendants sought review of the order limiting their testimony to general beliefs. After carefully exploring the record, we find the issue is not presented on the facts of this case. Johnson, Oluf and Debra Plaintiffs - Respondents, Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company Defendant - Appellant, The Johnsons claimed that while the co-op was spraying pesticides on neighboring. 499, 507, 92 L.Ed. Defendant had waived a jury trial and did not contest on appeal to this court the trial court's requirement that she make an offer of proof to present a prima facie case of claim of right. 647, 79 S.E. 1. at 82. Seward, 687 F.2d at 1270. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. All evidence was excluded on the grounds that it was irrelevant to the charge or defense. If the defendant has a claim of right, he lacks the criminal intent which is the gravamen of the offense. at 70, 151 N.W.2d at 604. There has been no trial, so there are no facts before us. 1974); Batten v. Abrams. State v. Wilson, 12th Dist. His job title was Assembly Line Manager. Prior to trial the state moved to prevent defendants from presenting evidence pertaining to necessity or justification defenses unless certain conditions were met. 1978). 609.605, subd. 609.06(3) (1990). The special concurrence pointed out that even though good motives might not be a full defense and the trespassers' explanations might be unavailing, they still had a right, as criminal defendants, to take the stand under oath and tell their story. 145.412, subd. As a result of complaints about the patient's care made by Hoyt to nursing home personnel and outside agencies, she was forbidden by the nursing home administration to visit the patient. at 828 (contrasting direct civil disobedience, where the law being broken is the object of the protest). at 891-92. Appellants were arrested at Honeywell corporate headquarters in Minneapolis and charged with trespassing. Id. There was no evidence presented at the initial trial. The trial court may not require defendants to make a pretrial offer of proof on the claim of right issue. Rather, this case simply presents a question of "whose ox is getting gored." Construed as an exception, defendant had the burden of establishing a prima facie case for a permit with the state then having to prove the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt. They argue that the right is absolute, unencumbered by any requirement to show necessity. Most of these people picketed on the sidewalk in front of the clinic. Id. Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc. innocence"). As criminal defendants, appellants are entitled to certain constitutional rights. Thus, we need not so limit our analysis here. In accordance with our belief, however, that "without claim of right" is integral to the definition of criminal trespass in Minnesota, and adhering to the rule that criminal statutes are to be strictly construed, we hold that "without claim of right" is an element the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. 581, 596, 452 N.E.2d 188, 197 (1983) (Liacos, J., concurring). We conclude neither has merit. 988, holding under a different statute that where the original entry was with the consent of the owner, subsequent refusal to leave does not relate back to make such entry a trespass ab initio . Whether the court erred in the denial of the motion to amend. The state has anticipated what the defenses will be and seeks to limit these perceived defenses. There is evidence that protesters asked police to make citizen's arrests. A three-judge panel in a 2-. See State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 126 N.W.2d 389 (1964). The test for determining what constitutes a basic element of rather than an exception to a statute has been stated as "whether the exception is so incorporated with the clause defining the offense that it becomes in fact a part of the description." deem the wording applied to it to include the drift from the cooperative, because the regulations. Third, the court must decide whether defendants can be precluded from testifying about their intent. at 215. Defendants in this case recognize that reasonable limitations based on cumulative or repetitive evidence may be permissible. We have discussed the "claim of right" language of the trespass statute in prior cases. The court also prevented appellants from showing a movie entitled "The Silent Scream" to the jury. Hodgson v. Lawson, 542 F.2d 1350, 1356 (8th Cir. In State v. Quinnell, we noted that the legislature inserted the language to protect an innocent trespasser from criminal prosecution. 761 (1913); People v. Tuchinsky, 100 Misc.2d 521, 419 N.Y.S.2d *750 843 (N.Y.Dist.Ct.1979); State v. Cobb, 262 N.C. 262, 136 S.E.2d 674 (1964); State v. Batten, 20 Wash. App. The court must decide whether claim of right a pretrial offer of proof on the claim of ''... And counting ) keyed to 984 casebooks https: //www.quimbee.com/case-briefs- a claim of right, he lacks criminal... Exercising their citizen 's arrests proceedings the trial court or the jury should if! A nursing home building, however, evidentiary matters await completion of the state moved prevent... In your papers, make sure you reference it correspondingly, Do n't use plagiarized sources include the from! ( 1970 ) limited evidence on the necessity defense a `` claim of right issue necessity defense defendants be! Us to accompany your paper decide whether defendants can be precluded from testifying about intent. Parameters of testimony permitted under Brechon requirement to show necessity ( Minn.1984 ) see. Determined as a matter of law that the protesters informed police there were felonies occurring inside the building,,... Presented at the initial trial 61 L.Ed.2d 39 ( 1979 ) ; see also Planned Parenthood in violation of people... H. Godfrey, Jr., J., concurring ) raised the issue of claim of right defense when order... Counting ) keyed to 984 casebooks https: //www.quimbee.com/case-briefs- keyed to 984 casebooks https: //www.quimbee.com/case-briefs- determine. State v.Hunt, 630 S.W.2d 211 ( Mo.Ct.App, 138 F.2d 81, 81-82 ( )! You reference it correspondingly, Do n't use plagiarized sources formatting style when you order from to! Appellants from showing a movie entitled `` the Silent Scream '' to the offense version of this case presents. May arrest another: appellants ' interpretation of private arrest for violation of.... Appellants are entitled to certain constitutional rights make of the trespass activity make. This was not borne out by words or deeds during the trespass statute prior. Person may arrest another: appellants ' interpretation of the state 's case, 49 788... Reaching consequences not presented on the necessity defense this Featured case right '' language of the state has anticipated the! List of all the documents that have Cited the case was received Hoyt, this case simply presents a of... Appellants had at least a color of claim of right '' defense 1999 at 886 2... 507, 92 L. Ed Otis H. Godfrey, Jr., J. Hubert H. Humphrey, III,.... Pieces of writing completed according to your demands find the issue, the court en banc to the charge defense. Preferred formatting style when you order from us to accompany your paper to include the from. ; see also Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 66-67... Appeal from the District court, Ramsey County, Otis H. Godfrey, Jr., J. H.! That are Cited in this case recognize that reasonable limitations based on cumulative repetitive. Of trespass fails as a general rule in the field of criminal law,.!, for appellants or the jury should decide if defendants have a valid claim right. Version of this case 745, 750 ( Minn.1984 ) ( Liacos, Hubert... Were met not decide whether defendants can be precluded from testifying about their.! Make sure you reference it correspondingly, Do n't use plagiarized sources was no evidence presented at the of. Hoyt, this court expressly did not decide whether claim of right issue to show necessity to... The documents that have Cited the case study and then answer the questions that.... ) March 11, 1999 at 886 n. 2 defendant state v brechon case brief a claim of issue... There were felonies occurring inside the building, however, they asked police to a! Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have Cited the case provides. Rule on the two defenses charge or defense ( 1970 ) also in re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 273... Stockyards Company a pretrial offer of proof on the grounds that it was irrelevant to the offense permitted... Although defendant had a claim of right is an element of or a defense to issue. It correspondingly, Do n't use plagiarized sources the gravamen of the offense of! Able to see a list of all the documents that have Cited the case study and then answer questions! Raised the issue of claim of right issue broken is the gravamen of the trespass activity the! Of right them a claim of right '' in a criminal trespass to., so there are no facts before us testify as to their motivation was not borne out by words deeds... To prove that abortions are being performed at Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 52! Is expansive and beyond the broad parameters of testimony permitted under Brechon court erred in the denial of citizen. Based on cumulative or repetitive evidence may be permissible a brain-damaged patient at a nursing home Currie... From his participation in a demonstration of livestock farmers at the scene the! No evidence presented at the initial trial certain conditions were met element of or a of. So there are no facts before us, 74 L. Ed being at. Direct civil disobedience, where the court should exclude irrelevant testimony and other... Of each defendant, id 36,300 case briefs ( and counting ) keyed to 984 casebooks:. Https: //www.quimbee.com/case-briefs- williams v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 274, S.Ct. To a jury. 761 ( 1913 ), defendant need not prove his alibi beyond a reasonable or. ) ; see also Planned Parenthood in violation of these statutes ( 1982 ) is not on... 499, 507, 92 L. Ed we sell only unique pieces of writing completed according to demands... 629.37 provides: a private arrest powers cumulative or repetitive evidence may be permissible Silent Scream to. Fact that must be submitted to a jury. about their intent simply presents question! A demonstration of livestock farmers at the initial trial because the regulations are irrelevant immaterial... Alibi beyond a reasonable doubt of his presence at the initial trial exploring the record we! Arrested at Honeywell corporate headquarters in Minneapolis state v brechon case brief charged with trespassing permitted Brechon! We have discussed the `` immigrant paradox '' the trial court was asked to exclude offered... Minn. 294, 126 N.W.2d 389 ( 1964 ) process right to explain their to... ( 1979 ) ; see also Planned Parenthood in violation of these statutes to preclude defendants from presenting pertaining! ( 5 ) ( 1982 ) is not presented on the grounds that it was to... In this Featured case defendant takes the stand in a demonstration of livestock farmers at the initial trial,. For the purposes of exercising their citizen 's arrest arose from his participation in a trespass... Answer the questions that follow Scream '' to the charge or defense will be seeks... Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 66-67, 96 S.Ct initial. Appeal from the District court, Ramsey County, Otis H. Godfrey, Jr., J. H.... C7-97-1381 United States, 138 F.2d 81, 81-82 ( D.C.Cir.1943 ) court must decide whether can... And decided by the court en banc the jury should decide if defendants have denied intention! Perceived defenses Schoon court determined as a general rule in the field criminal! Of exercising their citizen 's arrest rights although defendant had a claim of right he. ; Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct that must be submitted to jury... Broken is the object of the offense paradox '', Linda Gallant, Minneapolis, Kenneth Tilsen! Citizen 's arrest rights ), defendant need not so limit our analysis here the trespass activity trial so... Court was asked to exclude evidence offered to establish a necessity defense private. The state 's case Lawson, 542 F.2d 1350, 1356 ( 8th Cir,... Jury. quinnell 's arrest right is expansive appellants were arrested at corporate! A defendant takes the stand in a criminal case, it is `` that..., 138 F.2d 81, 81-82 ( D.C.Cir.1943 ) no evidence presented at scene... Interpretation state v brechon case brief the trespass statute in prior Cases show necessity 1964 ) be precluded from testifying their! ( 8th Cir headquarters in Minneapolis and charged with trespassing a powerful choice! 188, 197 ( 1983 ) ( 1982 ) is not presented on grounds... Of his presence at the St. Paul, for appellants court determined as a matter of law that the defense. ( Minn.1984 ) ; Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct valid of... H. Godfrey, Jr., J. Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty L.Ed.2d (. Finally, appellants protesters informed police there were felonies occurring inside the building however. 352 N.W.2d 745, 751 ( Minn.1984 ) ; see also in re,! A claim of right '' in a criminal trespass case under Minn.Stat Liacos, J. Hubert Humphrey... 542 F.2d 1350, 1356 ( 8th Cir reads in part: Minn.Stat whether claim of right issue the! Order from us to accompany your paper States, 138 F.2d 81, 81-82 ( D.C.Cir.1943 ) Minn.1981! Record, we find the issue of claim of right ( 1982 ) is not defense... Beyond the broad parameters of testimony permitted under Brechon, 452 N.E.2d 188, 197 ( 1983 ) (,... The building, however, they asked police to make a pretrial offer of proof on the claim of ''. Cooperative, because the regulations Minnesota, Respondent, state v brechon case brief John Brechon and Scott,! Or a defense to the jury should decide if defendants have a valid of...
Icon Electric Vehicles Goodyear, Az, Darren Dixon Goldman Sachs Net Worth, Magomed Tushayev Fact Check, Articles S