-
835 F.2d 924·
1st Cir.·
1987-12-21
·cited 66×
The court affirmed the mail fraud convictions but remanded for further proceedings regarding sentencing due to the district court's failure to comply with procedural rules for addressing disputed facts in the presentence report.
-
879 F.2d 1247·
5th Cir.·
1989-07-17
·cited 46×
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the indictment was not defective, the government did not breach the plea bargain, and the district court's sentencing departure was reasonable despite a harmless error in offense level calculation.
-
562 F.2d 65·
1st Cir.·
1977-08-03
·cited 30×
The court held that the defendant's false statements to the grand jury were material and that the trial court properly admitted evidence of co-conspirator statements and the recording secretary's notes.
-
947 F.2d 748·
5th Cir.·
1991-11-12
·cited 22×
The court affirmed most convictions, finding no reversible error in severance, indictment sufficiency, discovery, or prosecutorial misconduct claims, but remanded one defendant's double jeopardy claim.
-
841 F.2d 1235·
4th Cir.·
1988-03-10
·cited 22×
A conviction under an indictment that fails to allege an essential element of the offense, specifically scienter, is invalid if the objection is raised before verdict. Newly discovered evidence that is merely cumulative does not warrant a new trial.
-
764 F.2d 690·
9th Cir.·
1985-06-27
·cited 18×
The court held that the perjury indictment was legally sufficient and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain testimony or allowing jury access to exhibits.
-
929 F.2d 1538·
11th Cir.·
1991-04-29
·cited 14×
The court held that the burden of proving criminal forfeiture is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather a preponderance of the evidence standard applies.
-
954 F.2d 1187·
6th Cir.·
1992-01-27
·cited 13×
A bare check-kiting scheme can constitute bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1) as a scheme to defraud, and the evidence supported the conviction.
-
689 F.2d 178·
10th Cir.·
1982-09-27
·cited 12×
The submission of a worthless check, even one signed by a third party, does not constitute a 'false statement' under 15 U.S.C. § 645(a) because a check is not a factual assertion.
-
937 F.2d 160·
5th Cir.·
1991-07-23
·cited 4×
The court held that the requirement for the government attorney's signature on an indictment is non-jurisdictional and is waived by a guilty plea. The court also found that the issue of the trial judge's participation in plea negotiations requires remand.
-
677 F.2d 800·
11th Cir.·
1982-06-01
·cited 2×
A conviction under the RICO Act will not be reversed due to an indictment citing a superseded state bribery statute if the error did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice and the facts alleged still constitute a crime under the current statute.