United States v. Shippley

How courts have described this case

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

• describing the inconsistency between returning a general verdict convicting the defendant of conspiracy to distribute but also returning responses to special interrogatories that “indicated [the defendant] had not conspired to distribute any of the drugs listed in the indictment”
• stating government can consider uncharged relevant conduct arising prior to charged conspiracy
• “It is not enough that the finding is possibly or even probably wrong; the error must be pellucid to any objective observer.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “To enter any verdict when the jury first returned, the district court would have had to choose to “gore” one side or the other— just what Powell suggests courts should not do.”
• jury returned a guilty verdict on general verdict form, yet answered “no” on special interrogatories indicating the defendant distributed none of the drugs at issue, and trial court properly asked jury to further deliberate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).