United States v. Kingrea

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 indictment “was insufficient and that the district court’s subsequent jury instructions could not cure this fatal defect”
• “[W]e agree with [petitioner] that the indictment against him was insufficient and that the district court’s subsequent jury instructions could not cure this fatal defect.”
• “[T]he act that Congress has determined to be an unlawful act [under § 2156(a)(1)] is the sponsoring of ‘an animal in’ an animal fighting venture, not simply sponsoring a fighting venture.”
• vacating a conviction because the indictment omitted an essential element

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).