United States v. David R. Knoll and Ted W. Gleave

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the “search” at issue involved “specific rummaging through boxes of files that had earlier been stolen from Knoll’s law office”
• noting that a federal prosecutor “tacitly suggested and condoned further searching” of materials obtained during a burglary by telling the informant who arranged the burglary that the prosecutor was disappointed with the evidence the informant provided
• noting use of special jury instruction requiring unanimity on specific evidence of culpability to guard against potential jury confusion where defendants claimed duplicity
• “Ample proof existed ... to overcome appellants’ arguments that there was an insufficient connection between Gleave and the funds in the account to charge him with ownership.”
• “[W]hen one party relinquishes control of a letter by sending it to a third party, the reasonableness of the privacy expectation is undermined.”
• \We have held that an indictment charging aiding and abetting may be proven by demonstrating that the aider and abettor was in fact a principal.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).