United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Michael D. Andreas and Terrance S. Wilson, 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.

• finding no error in admitting evidence where the evidence “was not so shocking, repulsive or emotionally charged that its probative value was out-weighed by its prejudicial effect”
• stating that cheating cartel members did not negate conspiracy
• stating that cheating cartel members did not negate conspiracy
• rejecting similar contention when no credible evidence suggested that evidence was destroyed
• “The need to negotiate some details of the conspiracy with the cartel members . . . does not strip a defendant of the organizer role.”
• “[W]hen assessing whether someone acted under ‘color of law’ for the wiretap statute, the question is whether the witness was acting under the government’s direction when making the recording.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).