Eleventh Circuit· 7/24/1998

United States v. Mitchell

Citations

146 F.3d 1338
1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 16961
1998 WL 415636

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that “as long as the guilty verdict is supported by sufficient evidence, it must stand, even in the face of an inconsistent verdict on another count”
stating that jury verdicts are “insulated from review” on the ground that they are inconsistent (citing United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 68-69, 105 S. Ct. 471, 478-79 (1984)) (alterations omitted)
stating that jury verdicts are “insulated from review” on the ground that they are inconsistent (citing United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 68-69, 105 S. Ct. 471, 478-79 (1984)) (alterations omitted)
stating that jury verdicts are “insulated from review” on the ground that they are inconsistent (citing United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 68-69, 105 S. Ct. 471, 478-79 (1984)) (alterations omitted)
upholding conviction for armed robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) where jury also acquitted on charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
applying Powell to defendant’s claim that jury’s verdict of conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) was inconsistent with jury’s verdict of acquittal on charge of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anderson, Marcus, Hancock

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.