United States v. James Peter Darby

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that similar language in 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (requiring transmission of communications to be in “interstate commerce”
• holding the same under 18 U.S.C. § 875, which prohibits the transmission of a threatening communication in interstate commerce
• refusing to review district court's denial of motion to depart for aberrant behavior
• discussing general intent verses specific intent crimes and noting that “defenses such as diminished mental capacity and voluntary intoxication are viable only for specific intent crimes, because such defenses directly negate the required intent element of those crimes”
• conviction for transmitting threaten- ing interstate communications does not require proof of knowledge that threatening telephone call was interstate
• “Indictments and informations are construed more liberally after verdict than before.... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).