United States v. Anthony Volpendesto

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that testimony was not propensity evidence because it was introduced to show “subjective state of mind”
• stating that a statement against interest may be admitted as substantive evidence against a co-defendant
• finding that § 1512(c)(2) “operates as a catch-all to cover ‘otherwise’ obstructive behavior” that might not constitute a more specific offense like document destruction, which is listed in (c)(1).”
• explaining that subsection (c)(2) “‘operates as a catch-all to cover “otherwise” obstructive behavior’ that might not constitute a more specific offense like document destruction, which is listed in (c)(1)” (quoting United States v. Burge, 711 F.3d 803, 809 (7th Cir. 2013)
• affirming conviction based on sufficient evidence that the defendant acted “out of desire to influence what evidence came before the grand jury”
• observing that “corruptly” in § 1512(c)(2) means “wrongfully”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).