United States v. Friske

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, in making this showing, the government must establish that the “[defendant] knew that his actions were likely to affect a forfeiture proceeding”
• explaining that Aguilar’s holding “is best understood as an articulation of the proof of wrongful intent that will satisfy the mens rea requirement of ‘corruptly’ obstructing”
• reviewing court in sufficiency of evidence challenge must draw “all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in the Government’s favor” (quotation omitted)
• defining “corruptly” as acting “with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede or obstruct the [official proceeding]” (internal quotation omitted)
• explaining the evidence need not be inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis except guilt, and the jury is free to choose between or among reasonable conclusions that could be drawn from the evidence presented at trial
• defining acting “corruptly” as acting “with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede or obstruct the [official proceeding]” (quoting United States v. Mintmire, 507 F.3d 1273, 1289 (11th Cir. 2007))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).