United States v. Fredette

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that testi- mony about uncomplicated topics “would have added nothing to the trial that a juror could not understand on the basis of common sense”
• expert opinion is unreliable when there is no clear link between expert’s experience and the conclusions reached
• “It is not sufficient to establish that enhancement A necessarily implicates enhancement B: one must also show that enhancement B necessarily implicates enhancement A.”
• “[T]he enhancement for multiple victims goes to the ultimate harm caused by the defendant’s conduct, while the enhancement for mass-marketing concerns the scope and sophistication of the defendant’s fraud.”
• “Apprendi does not apply to sentencing factors that increase a defendant’s guideline range but do not increase the statutory máximum.”
• “[T]he enhancement for multiple victims goes to the ultimate harm caused by the defendant’s conduct, while the enhancement for mass-marketing concerns the scope and sophistication of the defendant’s fraud.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).