United States v. Allen Elias

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that industry groups’ and various agencies’ conclusions that certain cyanide-containing wastes were hazardous provided fair notice to support criminal conviction under RCRA, despite the defendant’s claim that the regulation required a specific standards-based test
• noting that “a confusion that would only afflict law students or lawyers” does not rise to the level of plain error
• considering a definition from a chemical manufacturer trade association, among others, in concluding that a regulation of a particular type of chemical waste was not vague
• finding no juror bias because both jurors testified that the defendant’s comments were in jest and that they “did not preoccupy them at the time, frighten them, or distract them from focusing on the evidence”
• affirming the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial where the defendant asked a juror “what it would take to buy her off” because the jurors testified at an evidentiary hearing that they believed the defendant was joking

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).