United States v. Michael Francis

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 government need not prove that a defendant intended his communication to be threatening”
• stating that “absent any express [statutory] reference to intent,” courts will “generally presume that proof only of ‘general’ rather than of ‘specific’ intent is required” to support conviction
• stating that “absent any express [statutory] reference to intent,” courts will “generally presume that proof only of ‘general’ rather than of ‘specific’ intent is required” to support conviction
• interpreting 18 U.S.C.A. § 875(c) (West 2000) in accord with precedents pertaining to § 871 and 18 U.S.C.A. § 879(a) (West Supp. 2002)
• “There is nothing in the language or legislative history of Section 875(c) suggesting that Congress intended it to be a specific-intent crime.”
• “Although the statute does not mention intent or willfulness, intent is of course an element of the crime.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).