United States v. John Anthony Williams

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that even if the “jury returns a guilty verdict on an indictment charging several acts in the conjunctive . . . , the verdict stands if the evidence is sufficient with respect to any one of the acts charged” (citation omitted)
• “In examining a statute for vagueness, we must determine whether a person of average intelligence would reasonably understand that the charged conduct is proscribed.”
• “In examining a statute for vagueness, we must determine whether a person of average intelligence would rea- sonably understand that the charged conduct is proscribed.”
• “In examining a 9 statute for vagueness, we must determine whether a person of 10 average intelligence would reasonably understand that the charged 11 conduct is proscribed.”
• “Section 1346 thus codifies an ‘intangible rights’ theory of fraud. Under this theory, the object of the fraudulent scheme is the victim’s intangible right to receive honest services.”
• “[B]y overruling McNally, Congress restored the pre- McNally landscape.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).