United States v. Douglas N. Pearson and Arthur M. Hawkins

How courts have described this case

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

• superseding indictment did not impermissibly broaden the charge where it extended the conspiracy by four years and added three overt acts
• “[O]nce the identity of the unindicted coconspirator became [publicly] known, the indictment should have been unsealed . . . .”
• venue proper on wire fraud count in Southern District of Illinois, where defendants’ conduct provided evidence of intent to defraud, even though wire transfer forming basis for that count did not originate in, pass through, or terminate in that District

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).