United States v. Roberta Dupre, Beverly Stambaugh

How courts have described this case

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

• finding neither constructive amendment nor prejudicial variance where government offered evidence of different wire transfer than wire referenced in indictment
• finding emails sent to defendants were not hearsay because they were offered “to provide context for defendants’ messages sent in response to them, messages whose admissibility is not contested”
• finding no constructive amendment, where the only wire alleged in indictment was not proven at trial, because \the evidence at trial concerned the same elaborate scheme to defraud . . . as was described in the indictment\
• “Nothing in the record suggest[ed] that the defense would have prepared any differently had the indictment specified a transfer via Western Union of $2,000 from Irving, Texas, instead of a transfer via Western Union of $2,000 from Liberty Township, Ohio.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).