§Why CasetextPricing

USA v. Daugerdas et al

MEMORANDUM & ORDER as to

68 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Olano

    507 U.S. 725 (1993)   Cited 11,310 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plain error review requires a reviewing court to refrain from correcting an error unless it is plain and affects "substantial rights," such that the error "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings"

  2. Puckett v. United States

    556 U.S. 129 (2009)   Cited 4,553 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to be "clear or obvious" an error cannot be "subject to reasonable dispute"

  3. Stern v. Marshall

    564 U.S. 462 (2011)   Cited 3,753 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a litigant forfeited a statutory right, noting the litigant "does not explain why" the relevant "statutory limitation may not be . . . waived"

  4. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker

    554 U.S. 471 (2008)   Cited 1,796 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding a Rule 59(e) motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment"

  5. Smith v. Phillips

    455 U.S. 209 (1982)   Cited 4,874 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a juror's pending job application with the prosecutor's office required a post-trial hearing on juror bias

  6. Wainwright v. Witt

    469 U.S. 412 (1985)   Cited 3,276 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that juror bias determination is a question of fact, even though "[t]he trial judge is of course applying some kind of legal standard to what he sees and hears"

  7. Taylor v. Illinois

    484 U.S. 400 (1988)   Cited 2,298 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court's exclusion of a witness whose name was untimely disclosed to the government didn't violate the defendant's right to a complete defense

  8. Patton v. Yount

    467 U.S. 1025 (1984)   Cited 1,580 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court's “particularly extensive” 10-day voir dire ensured the jury's impartiality

  9. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood

    464 U.S. 548 (1984)   Cited 1,403 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to obtain a new trial because of a juror's alleged untruthfulness during voir dire, "a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause."

  10. Adams v. Texas

    448 U.S. 38 (1980)   Cited 1,264 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain veniremen had been improperly excluded because they acknowledged that their views of the death penalty might "affect" their deliberations, but only to the extent that they would view their task with greater gravity

  11. Section 2 - Principals

    18 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 23,924 times   57 Legal Analyses
    Holding aiders and abettors punishable as principals under federal criminal law

  12. Section 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

    18 U.S.C. § 371   Cited 21,529 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Requiring proof of an "act to effect the object of the conspiracy"

  13. Section 1341 - Frauds and swindles

    18 U.S.C. § 1341   Cited 13,445 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Relating to mail fraud

  14. Section 7201 - Attempt to evade or defeat tax

    26 U.S.C. § 7201   Cited 3,352 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Attempting to evade or defeat tax

  15. Section 1621 - Perjury generally

    18 U.S.C. § 1621   Cited 1,540 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Criminalizing perjury

  16. Section 6002 - Immunity generally

    18 U.S.C. § 6002   Cited 863 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring same