Lutwak v. United States

3 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Evidence - Rule 801(d)(2)(E) – Co-Conspirator Statements

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    The D. C. Circuit held that the conspiracy ended in 2001 when the objects of the conspiracy were achieved. See generally Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957); Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949); Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (1953).United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008)The defendant was charged with providing matieral support to a terrorist organization.

  2. Statute of Limitations

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    The D. C. Circuit held that the conspiracy ended in 2001 when the objects of the conspiracy were achieved. See generally Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957); Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949); Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (1953).United States v. Seale, 542 F.3d 1033 (5th Cir. 2008)The defendant allegedly committed the offense of kidnapping in 1964.

  3. Conspiracy - Generally

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    The D. C. Circuit held that the conspiracy ended in 2001 when the objects of the conspiracy were achieved. See generally Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957); Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949); Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (1953).United States v. Kapelioujnyj, 547 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2008) The evidence in this § 2315 case was insufficient to prove that the defendant was aware that the stolen properly he was enlisted to help sell was woth at least $5,000.00.