United States of America, Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Marion T. Frampton, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Latique Johnson, Also Known as \John\

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that consideration element 6 could be satisfied where the consideration is \valuable 7 firearms\
• noting that consideration element could be satisfied where the consideration is “valuable firearms”
• noting that “the relevant inquiry [was] whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that [the defendants] intended that [a] murder ... take place in exchange for the provision of, or a promise to pay, anything of pecuniary value” (emphasis added)
• “Having found no error in [the district court’s jury] instruction, we hold [defendant’s ineffective assistance] claim must fail.”
• addressing whether an \unspecified future 'favor' ” could qualify as something of \pecuniary value”
• “The federal murder-for-hire statute proscribes a very limited category of behavior; only those instances in which one party agrees to commit a murder in exchange for another party’s provision (or future promise

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).