40 Cited authorities

United States v. Lanier
520 U.S. 259 (1997) Cited 2,399 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should look to prior judicial decisions interpreting a statute in considering whether it is vague
Kolender v. Lawson
461 U.S. 352 (1983) Cited 3,040 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding state misdemeanor statute unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process Clause
Grayned v. City of Rockford
408 U.S. 104 (1972) Cited 4,712 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statute's words, even when "marked by flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity," are clear based on "what the ordinance as a whole prohibits"
Chicago v. Morales
527 U.S. 41 (1999) Cited 1,298 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that vagueness that "fails to establish standards for the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests" is subject to facial challenge
Smith v. Goguen
415 U.S. 566 (1974) Cited 1,195 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding statute void-for-vagueness without finding that Goguen's actions constituted protected speech
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor
478 U.S. 833 (1986) Cited 723 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the CFTC's adjudicative functions did not violate separation of powers
United States v. Binday
804 F.3d 558 (2d Cir. 2015) Cited 141 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that victim sustains loss from fraud if defendant intends his misrepresentation to induce victim to enter transaction without relevant facts necessary to make informed economic decision
United States v. Conn
297 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2002) Cited 195 times
Finding that ATF agent's opinion, based on his training and knowledge as an ATF agent, exceeded the scope of admissible lay opinion testimony under Rule 701
U.S. v. Leahy
464 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 157 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that “red flags” and a failure to ask questions about them demonstrates deliberate avoidance
U.S. v. Kuzniar
881 F.2d 466 (7th Cir. 1989) Cited 226 times
Stating that Rule 33 relief is available where "the substantial rights of the defendant have been jeopardized by errors or omissions during trial"
Section 1341 - Frauds and swindles
18 U.S.C. § 1341 Cited 13,397 times 103 Legal Analyses
Relating to mail fraud
Section 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
18 U.S.C. § 1343 Cited 11,939 times 170 Legal Analyses
Barring fraudulent schemes "for obtaining money or property"
Rule 701 - Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 701 Cited 5,720 times 26 Legal Analyses
Requiring lay opinion testimony to be "rationally based on the witness's perception"
Section 1344 - Bank fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1344 Cited 4,905 times 60 Legal Analyses
Defining the maximum prison terms for wire fraud that affects a financial institution and bank fraud, which define the penalties for the conspiracy crime that Anderson pleaded guilty to according to 18 U.S.C. § 1349, as "not more than 30 years"
Rule 704 - Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
Fed. R. Evid. 704 Cited 3,023 times 12 Legal Analyses
Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."
Section 13 - Violations generally; punishment; costs of prosecution
7 U.S.C. § 13 Cited 261 times 12 Legal Analyses
Pertaining to punishment for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act
Section 1348 - Securities and commodities fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1348 Cited 260 times 40 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting schemes to obtain certain property "by means of false or fraudulent pretenses"
Section 6c - Prohibited transactions
7 U.S.C. § 6c Cited 213 times 32 Legal Analyses
Defining "spoofing" under the Commodity Exchange Act

USA v. Coscia

40 Cited authorities

Holding that courts should look to prior judicial decisions interpreting a statute in considering whether it is vague

Holding state misdemeanor statute unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process Clause

Holding that a statute's words, even when "marked by flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity," are clear based on "what the ordinance as a whole prohibits"

Holding that vagueness that "fails to establish standards for the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests" is subject to facial challenge

Holding statute void-for-vagueness without finding that Goguen's actions constituted protected speech

Holding that the CFTC's adjudicative functions did not violate separation of powers

Holding that victim sustains loss from fraud if defendant intends his misrepresentation to induce victim to enter transaction without relevant facts necessary to make informed economic decision

Finding that ATF agent's opinion, based on his training and knowledge as an ATF agent, exceeded the scope of admissible lay opinion testimony under Rule 701

Holding that “red flags” and a failure to ask questions about them demonstrates deliberate avoidance

Stating that Rule 33 relief is available where "the substantial rights of the defendant have been jeopardized by errors or omissions during trial"

Relating to mail fraud

Barring fraudulent schemes "for obtaining money or property"

Requiring lay opinion testimony to be "rationally based on the witness's perception"

Defining the maximum prison terms for wire fraud that affects a financial institution and bank fraud, which define the penalties for the conspiracy crime that Anderson pleaded guilty to according to 18 U.S.C. § 1349, as "not more than 30 years"

Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."

Pertaining to punishment for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act

Prohibiting schemes to obtain certain property "by means of false or fraudulent pretenses"

Defining "spoofing" under the Commodity Exchange Act