United States of America, Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Frank James Skelly and Craig Gross, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees

How courts have described this case

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

• conducting plain error review because \[t]he defendants ... failed to raise a specific objection to the omission of [certain] language from the charge\
• fiduciary \relationship exists in situations in which a broker has discretionary authority over the customer's account\
• “[P]romise me you won’t get me in trouble? . . . and have me arrested[.]”
• ʺ[W]e may not reverse for failure to give a more adequate instruction . . . unless the failure constitutes ʹplain error.ʹʺ
• “[O]therwise truthful state- ments made by [a broker] about the merits of a particular investment are not transformed into misleading ‘half-truths’ simply by the broker’s failure to reveal that he is receiving added compensation for promoting a particular investment.”
• “This is not a case . . . where it is impossible to determine which of two competing theories formed the basis for conviction, for it is overwhelmingly likely that any reasonable juror would have convicted on the basis of the [g]overnment’s primary theory.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).