United States v. Robert Coffman, Jerry Beller, and Thresher T. Rippey

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the argument “that a loss that cannot possibly occur cannot-be intended ... is inconsistent with application note [11]”
• noting that ‘economic reality’ approach “gives a twisted meaning to the word ‘intended’ ”
• noting that “the rapidity with which the jury responded by bringing in a verdict could be thought evidence that it felt coerced by the judge’s instruction”
• noting that in the Seventh Circuit a violation of Rule 43(a) “does not entitle the defendant to a new trial if it is unlikely to have affected the jury’s verdict”
• stating that “the place for mitigation on the basis of a large discrepancy between intended and probable loss is, under the guidelines, in the decision whether to depart downward”
• noting that in the Seventh Circuit a violation of Rule 43(a) “does not entitle the defendant to a new trial if it is unlikely to have affected the jury’s verdict”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).