19 Cited authorities

Chiarella v. United States
445 U.S. 222 (1980) Cited 978 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that duty to disclose under Rule 10b-5 arises from fiduciary relationship
Russell v. United States
369 U.S. 749 (1962) Cited 1,837 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that an indictment may not be "amended except by resubmission to the grand jury"
Stirone v. United States
361 U.S. 212 (1960) Cited 1,789 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding courts must assume "that under an indictment drawn in general terms a conviction might rest upon a showing" under those general terms
Bronston v. United States
409 U.S. 352 (1973) Cited 408 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the perjury statute does not apply to literally true but unresponsive answers
McCormick v. United States
500 U.S. 257 (1991) Cited 232 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that where payments are structured as campaign contributions, Hobbs Act liability lies when "payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act"
U.S. v. Kellington
217 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 331 times
Holding that where appellate court reversed a judgment of acquittal but did not rule on a motion for new trial, the rule of mandate did not require the district court to deny the new trial motion
U.S. v. Wright
625 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 135 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was no plain error when the prosecutor asked the defendant questions concerning a “rogue agent” during “a fairly argumentative cross-examination in order to poke holes in [the defendant's] version of the facts”
United States v. Ladum
141 F.3d 1328 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 124 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that defendant does not qualify for minor participant status will be upheld unless clearly erroneous
United States v. Murray
751 F.2d 1528 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 130 times
Holding that counsel's conduct and strategic choices were within the wide range of reasonable professional representation and that combined with overwhelming evidence against the defendant, there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed
U.S. v. Thomas
390 F. App'x 628 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 54 times
Holding that exceptions in 18 U.S.C. § 6002 applied to obstruction of justice charge

USA v. Bonds

19 Cited authorities

Holding that duty to disclose under Rule 10b-5 arises from fiduciary relationship

Holding that an indictment may not be "amended except by resubmission to the grand jury"

Holding courts must assume "that under an indictment drawn in general terms a conviction might rest upon a showing" under those general terms

Holding that the perjury statute does not apply to literally true but unresponsive answers

Holding that where payments are structured as campaign contributions, Hobbs Act liability lies when "payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act"

Holding that where appellate court reversed a judgment of acquittal but did not rule on a motion for new trial, the rule of mandate did not require the district court to deny the new trial motion

Holding that there was no plain error when the prosecutor asked the defendant questions concerning a “rogue agent” during “a fairly argumentative cross-examination in order to poke holes in [the defendant's] version of the facts”

Finding that defendant does not qualify for minor participant status will be upheld unless clearly erroneous

Holding that counsel's conduct and strategic choices were within the wide range of reasonable professional representation and that combined with overwhelming evidence against the defendant, there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed

Holding that exceptions in 18 U.S.C. § 6002 applied to obstruction of justice charge