United States v. Mauricio Javier Puche

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that reversal is required only when there is a “reasonable possibility” that the Rule 24(c) violation resulted in actual prejudice to the defendants
• deeming it reasonable to infer that the intermingling of tainted and legitimate proceeds “act[ed] as a ‘cover’ and hence reduced suspicion of’ the source of the tainted funds
• reviewing the district court’s legal conclusions regarding forfeiture de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error
• upholding a district court’s decision to excuse a juror following an in camera interview where the court promptly notified the parties of the juror’s situation
• finding sufficient evidence to sustain a money laundering conviction where the jury could infer intent from the large volume of transfers, their frequency, and other suspicious features
• explaining that speculation is insufficient to show prejudice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).