UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan SCOP and Raphael Bloom, Defendants-Appellants

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “evidence ... was not unduly prejudicial” because “[i]t concerned truly similar activities rather than inflammatory criminal acts”
• In the event the jury returns inconsistent verdicts, including an acquittal of one charge, “the government is prevented from upsetting the acquittal by the Double Jeopardy clause.”
• “Though undoubtedly much evidence at trial concerned [the unnamed stocks], there was no shortage of evidence regarding [the defendants’] use of nominee accounts, for example, to buy [the named stocks].”
• joint and several liability of two codefendants appropriate although third codefendant escaped criminal liability for restitution through plea agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).