United States v. Richard I. Berger, United States of America v. Richard I. Berger

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that we review the “totality of the circumstances” and that no single factor is “talismanic” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that “restitution in this case is governed by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996”
• noting that “restitution in this case is governed by the Man- datory Victims Restitution Act of 1996”
• stating that a district court’s Allen instruction “must be upheld unless it is clear from the record that the charge had an impermissibly coercive effect on the jury” (quoting United States v. Plunk, 153 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir. 1998
• applying knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver 4 requirement to right to be present at trial
• finding no coercion when the court took hours to provide an “adequate counterbalance” to the “so-called” Allen charge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).