United States v. Adrian Norman Payseno

How courts have described this case

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

• finding genuine possibility of juror confusion in case involving three acts of extortion directed at separate victims, occurring at different times, in different locations, involving different methods of communicating threats, and carried out by varying numbers of individuals
• specific unanimity instruction required where complex evidence of separate acts of extortion at different locations and times by various individuals created risk of jury confusion
• specific instruction required where evidence indicated three acts of extortion directed at separate victims, occurring at different times and locations and involving different methods of communicating threats
• Where defendant \did not request a specific unanimity instruction and failed to object to the court's instructions as given\ appellate court will review for plain error.
• “Normally, a general instruction on the requirement of unanimity suffices to instruct the jury that they must be unanimous on whatever specifications form the basis of the guilty verdict.”
• each act of extortion is a separate offense under section 894(a)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).