14 Cited authorities

Kolender v. Lawson
461 U.S. 352 (1983) Cited 3,050 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 4,730 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"
Cheek v. United States
498 U.S. 192 (1991) Cited 1,078 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant in a criminal tax case can assert a defense of ignorance or misunderstanding of the tax law, leading to "a good-faith belief that he was not violating any of the provisions of the tax laws"
U.S. v. Durham
645 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2011) Cited 68 times
Finding plain error where district court stated that defendant had a “prior involvement with violent offenses,” including gun use, when defendant had no prior convictions involving firearms
United States v. Blagojevich
794 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2015) Cited 34 times
Affirming that mistake of law is no defense to wire fraud
United States v. McKnight
665 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2011) Cited 24 times
In LG Display, the court acknowledged that a claim-by-claim analysis might yield a finding that individual consumers were real parties in interest even, if the state attorney general also had parens patriae standing in the lawsuit.
U.S. v. Mutuc
349 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 32 times
Affirming obstruction enhancement to underlying bankruptcy fraud offense level
U.S. v. Perez
43 F.3d 1131 (7th Cir. 1994) Cited 44 times
Holding that erroneous jury instruction, which failed to include a "precise description of the requisite specific intent element," was plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights such that conviction had to be reversed
U.S. v. Prude
489 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 2007) Cited 26 times
No. 06-1425. Argued December 6, 2006. Decided June 14, 2007. Appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Rudolph T. Randa, Chief Judge. Gordon P. Giampietro (argued), Gregory J. Haanstad, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Joshua T. Buchman, Purvi G. Patel (argued), McDermott, Will Emery, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant. Before POSNER, RIPPLE and WOOD, Circuit Judges. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. On June 28, 2005, Kimberly Prude was indicted on one count
United States v. Martin-Trigona
684 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1982) Cited 64 times
Holding that "trial court's failure to conduct an appropriate inquiry into [defendant's] financial ability to retain counsel was reversible error"
Section 6c - Prohibited transactions
7 U.S.C. § 6c Cited 214 times 32 Legal Analyses
Defining "spoofing" under the Commodity Exchange Act

USA v. Coscia

14 Cited authorities

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 a defendant in a criminal tax case can assert a defense of ignorance or misunderstanding of the tax law, leading to "a good-faith belief that he was not violating any of the provisions of the tax laws"

Finding plain error where district court stated that defendant had a “prior involvement with violent offenses,” including gun use, when defendant had no prior convictions involving firearms

Affirming that mistake of law is no defense to wire fraud

In LG Display, the court acknowledged that a claim-by-claim analysis might yield a finding that individual consumers were real parties in interest even, if the state attorney general also had parens patriae standing in the lawsuit.

Affirming obstruction enhancement to underlying bankruptcy fraud offense level

Holding that erroneous jury instruction, which failed to include a "precise description of the requisite specific intent element," was plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights such that conviction had to be reversed

Holding that "trial court's failure to conduct an appropriate inquiry into [defendant's] financial ability to retain counsel was reversible error"

Defining "spoofing" under the Commodity Exchange Act