United States v. Francis Crowley

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “the question of [a defendant’s] intention” must generally be inferred because it is “rarely susceptible to proof by direct evidence”
• observing that substantial step requirement ensures that attempt does not punish persons “for their thoughts alone”
• observing that substantial step requirement ensures that attempt does not punish persons \for their thoughts alone\
• observing that substantial step requirement ensures that attempt does not punish persons “for their thoughts alone”
• noting district court’s broad discretion to assess proposed testimony’s probative value regarding truthfulness and balance against prejudicial effect
• applying Fed. R. Crim. P. 30 and holding that “the mere fact that a defendant submitted his proposed language as part of a requested charge does not in itself preserve the point for appeal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).