United States v. Kanchanalak

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that it may be too vague to require only that a defendant “act[ed] with an improper purpose”
• finding that “the government can easily correct this defect by asking the grand jury to return a second superseding indictment containing the correct language” when the initial indictment did not match the text of the statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).