U.S. v. Caldwell

5 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. JACKSON (BAILEY)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed June 27, 2012

    Nothing in the court’s instructions would have disabused them of that notion. The ensuing verdict, based ona finding of less than all the elements of the charged offense, violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendmentrightsto trial by jury. (United States v. Caldwell, supra, 989 F.2d at p. 1060; In re Winship, supra, 397 U.S. at p. 364; People v. Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 1313-1314.). Accordingly, the Count Ten conviction and sentence should be reversed.

  2. USA v. Zarrab et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition

    Filed August 8, 2016

    The elements of this type of Section 371 offense—commonly called a “Klein conspiracy” after its progenitor United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908 (2d Cir. 1957)—are clear: “(1) [that the defendant] entered into an agreement (2) to obstruct a lawful function of the government (3) by deceitful or dishonest means and (4) at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Ballistrea, 101 F.3d 827, 832 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting United States v. Caldwell, 989 F.2d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 1993)). Case 1:15-cr-00867-RMB Document 75 Filed 08/08/16 Page 50 of 63 43 The Second Circuit has routinely upheld Klein conspiracy convictions premised on similar conduct. For example, in United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1313 (2d Cir. 1987), the Court upheld a conviction under Section 371 based on the defendants’ structuring of transactions of over $10,000 into smaller $1,000 increments in order to evade currency transaction reporting (“CTR”) requirements.

  3. PEOPLE v. JACKSON (BAILEY)

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed October 17, 2013

    And this, in turn, makesit reasonably likely that the jury convicted him of Count 10 on a mistaken theory (that one can commit sexual penetration on a person believed to be dead), in violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (United States v. Caldwell (1993) 989 F.2d 1056, 1060; In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 364; People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1313- 1314,) On a final note, respondent’s reliance CALJIC No. 1.00, regarding the jury accepting and following the law as the judgestates it, is misplaced. The crucial portion of the instruction says, “If anything concerning the law said by the attorneys in the arguments .. . conflicts with my instructions on the law, you mustfollow my instructions.”

  4. USA v. KAHN et al

    MOTION to Clarify Order #229

    Filed November 10, 2009

    The Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. True engaged in acts to obstruct or interfere with one of the United States government's lawful functions, ”by deceit, craft, or trickery, or at least means that are dishonest”. United States v. Caldwell, 989 F.2d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 1993, quoting Hammerschmidt v.United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924) If the IRS was not fooled by any of the activities of ARL and suffered no loss, the jury may well conclude that ARL’s representations were not “material.” If the IRS was not fooled by any of the activities of ARL, the jury may well conclude that defendants’ actions did not constitute “deceit, craft, trickery, or dishonest means.”

  5. USA v. Springer et al

    MOTION to Reconsider

    Filed September 30, 2009

    11 of “Defrauding the United States.” In U.S. v. Caldwell, 989 F.2d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 1993) the Prosecution contended “any conspiracy to obstruct a government function is illegal,...., even if the obstruction is not done deceitfully or dishonestly.” The 9 Circuit explainedth “[U]nder this reading, the government argues, people have a duty ‘not to conduct their business affairs in such a manner that the IRS would be impeded and impaired in its . . . collection of revenue.