United States v. Newman and Chiasson

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that fraudulent intent element of insider trading can be established “solely through circumstantial evidence”
• indicating that consciously avoiding knowing that information came from an insider or that the insider received a benefit might have sustained conviction
• noting that its earlier insider-trading cases involved stronger proof because they “involved tippees who directly participated in the tipper’s breach (and therefore had knowledge of the tipper’s disclosure for personal benefit
• indicating that the government might have prevailed if had proven conscious avoidance
• identifying instructional error and ordering dismissal of the indictment under Rule 29 because even a properly instructed jury would not have had sufficient evidence to convict
• requiring proof that a tippee knew of a “source’s improper motive for disclosure”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).