Parker v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• requiring only notice of “essence of the crime” charged and explaining that “discrepancies in the particulars of how a defendant effected the crime do not constructively amend the indictment” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Denying relief even for plain errors where a defendant deliberately provokes a procedural irregularity, the invited error doctrine seeks to avoid rewarding mistakes stemming from a defendant's own ‘intelligent, deliberate course of conduct’ in pursuing his defense.”
• applying plain error analysis to an unpreserved claim of constructive amendment
• declining to find plain error where Second Circuit caselaw suggested that the circumstances at issue did not amount to a constructive amendment; given this uncertainty, “[a] handful of” conflicting out-of-Circuit cases addressing the issue could not establish plain error
• “Because the operative legal question is unsettled, we cannot conclude that [the defendant’s] conviction . . . plainly violated [the Constitution].” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “We have consistently permitted significant flexibility in proof adduced at trial to suppor a defendant’s conviction’ provided that the defendant was given notice of the core criminality to be | | proven against him.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).