United States v. Francis Brooks

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that jury could reasonably conclude that police officers “had enough common sense and knowledge to understand that if [defendant] expected $3500 for the sale of whatever was in the paper bag, . . . the bag surely didn’t contain a tuna fish sandwich”
• affirming federal extortion conviction of police officer, where evidence established that victim placed money for bribe to retrieve her impounded car on defendant's patrol car dashboard and circumstantial evidence established that defendant kept a portion of it for herself
• first quoting Urban, 404 F.3d at 775; and then quoting United States v. Reicherter, 647 F.2d 397, 400 (3d Cir. 1981)
• RICO indictment was adequately specific even though it did not include the name of the alleged victims because the time periods in which the alleged crimes occurred and the descriptions of the offenses were adequately specific
• “The District Court limited inquiry only into specific sentences that could have been imposed if the witnesses had refused to cooperate— a line of questioning that we have allowed trial courts to curtail.” (emphasis in original)
• listing the elements of racketeering conspiracy

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).