United States v. George Michael Shipsey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court constructively amended the indictment because the jury instructions amended the mens rea element of the crime
• \We need not decide whether reversal is always required because we hold that Shipsey was prejudiced by the constructive amendment of the indictment.\
• “We need not decide whether reversal is always required because we hold that Shipsey was prejudiced by the constructive amendment of the indictment.”
• because the court held that the district court erred by constructively amending the theft counts in the indictment, requiring reversal and a remand for a new trial, the court need not reach the appellant's remaining challenges

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).