United States v. Mattock

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence of aiding and abetting was insufficient where the jury would have had to infer that the defendant drove the shooter to the scene, and would have had to further infer, based on this inference, that she knew the shooter possessed a gun and intended to use it
• juxtaposing the concepts of knowledge and specific intent for aiding and abetting liability (citing United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 113 (3d Cir. 1999))
• holding evidence must rise above mere speculation
• holding evidence must rise above mere speculation
• “[t]he drawing of one inference upon another to reach this conclusion is entirely too tenuous, and goes beyond reasonable inferences to mere speculation”
• a verdict cannot rest on the “attenuated piling of inference on inference”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).