United States v. Thomas B. Middlemiss, William Orfanos and Setiri Sotiriou

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial where “defense counsel knew about the witness and could have investigated [her] possible testimony”
• holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial; trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence
• rejecting argument that a single incident of extortion took place because scheme involved same people and same form of cash payment
• hiding assets by placing them under family members' names, concealing interests in a business, creating an extensive false paper trail of corporate documents, and accepting only cash payments for the extortion they committed established sophisticated concealment
• rejecting a claim of newly discovered evidence in the form of a witness affidavit executed post-conviction because that witness’s existence was known to the defendants prior to trial
• hiding assets by placing them under family members' names, concealing interests in a business, creating an extensive false paper trail of corporate documents, and accepting only cash payments for the extortion they committed established sophisticated concealment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).