United States v. Guadagna

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that direct proof of the defendant’s fraudulent intent is not necessary for wire fraud conviction and that circumstantial evidence may suffice
• holding that sufficiency test must be applied “to the totality of the government’s case and not to each element, as each fact may gain color from others”
• holding that sufficiency test must be applied “to the totality of the government’s case and not to each element, as each fact may gain color from others”
• holding that sufficiency test must be applied “to the totality of the government’s case and not to each element, as each fact may gain color from others”
• holding that sufficiency test “must be applied to the totality of the government’s case and not to each element, as each fact may gain color from others”
• holding that sufficiency test must be applied “to the totality of the government’s case and not to each element, as each fact may gain color from others”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).