United States v. Bill Lew

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that to support a mail fraud conviction, “the intent must be to obtain money or property from the one who is deceived”
• interpreting Supreme Court precedent as “ma[king] it clear that the intent must be to obtain money or property from the one who is deceived”
• “[T]he intent of the scheme ... must be to obtain money or property from the one who is deceived.... ”
• “[T]he intent must be to obtain money or property from ... one who is deceived .... ” (emphasis added)
• no plain error where there was substantial independent evidence against the defendant
• “While it is true that after McNally the elements of mail fraud remain unchanged except that the intent of the scheme must be to obtain money or property, the Court made it clear that the intent must be to obtain money or property from the one who is deceived”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).