United States v. Kurian Chacko

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an intent to harm can be inferred from conduct that “has the effect of injuring as a necessary result of carrying it out”
• explaining that “touchstone” of multiple punishments analysis “is whether Congress intended to authorize separate punishments for the offensive conduct under separate statutes”
• noting that section 1344 bank fraud requires the distinguishing element of a scheme or artifice, while section 1014 false statement offense requires the distinguishing element of a false statement
• ʺ[A] Double Jeopardy challenge can be waived . . . if not asserted at the district court level.ʺ
• if there is an element in each offense that is not contained in the other, they are not the same for purposes of double jeopardy
• discussing Blockburger v. 9 United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).