Second Circuit· 4/10/1998

United States v. Phillip Rossomando

Citations

144 F.3d 197
1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7154
1998 WL 217875

How courts have described this case

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

holding that court erred in giving “no ultimate harm” instruction because lack of proper predicate made charge too confusing for jury and potentially vitiated defendant’s good-faith defense
noting that “where some immediate loss to the victim is contemplated by a defendant, the fact that the defendant believes (rightly or wrongly) that he will ‘ultimately be able to work things out so that the victim suffers no loss is no excuse”
vacating conviction because initial charge was erroneous and 5 supplemental charge failed to fix the problem
finding a no-ultimate-harm instruction improper where defense’s theory at trial had been that the defendant thought the victim was “never going to lose money”
noting that ʺwhere some immediate loss to the victim is contemplated by a defendant, the fact that the defendant believes (rightly or wrongly) that he will ʹultimatelyʹ be able to work things out so that the victim suffers no loss is no excuseʺ
jury request that the court clarify its “no ultimate harm” instruction demonstrated “evident confusion” resulting from instruction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Oakes, Cabranes, Hurley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.