United States v. Noble R. Starnes and Clifford Roland

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendants forfeited their argument that the prosecutor failed to provide exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to explore the issue on cross- examination of government agents or by seeking a hearing in the district court
• “[Racketeering acts must have been connected with each other by some common scheme, plan or motive so as to constitute a pattern and not simply a series of disconnected acts.”
• jury could reasonably infer that businessman who arranged for an arsonist to burn a friend’s commercial building knew of the friend’s intent to collect insurance money

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).