EARL J. RAY, JR. v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that courts are bound by the language of the indictment in determining the scope of the conspiracy and therefore whether overt acts are in furtherance of that conspiracy
• stating that an “indictment’s main purpose is ‘to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusation against him’ ” (quoting Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 767, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962)
• explaining that court must determine “the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, for it is that which determines both the duration of the conspiracy, 29 and whether the act relied on as an overt act may properly be regarded as in furtherance of the conspiracy”
• permitting “flexibility in proof” at trial, where “the defendant was given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial.” (quoting Berger, 224 F.3d 107, 117 (2d. Cir. 2000)); see United States v. Sitzmann, 74 F. Supp. 3d 96, 122 (D.D.C. 2014
• permitting \flexibility in proof\ at trial, where \the defendant was given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial.\ (quoting Berger , 224 F.3d 107 , 117 (2d Cir. 2000) ); see United States v. Sitzmann , 74 F.Supp.3d 96 , 122 (D.D.C. 2014
• “Adherence to the language of the indictment is essential because the Fifth Amendment requires that criminal prosecutions be limited to the unique allegations of the indictments returned by the grand jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).