United States v. Thomas Brandon Davis

How courts have described this case

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

• holding there was no duplicity where indictment charged “ongoing and continuous course of conduct, accomplished through three different methods,” repeated numerous times over the years, all involving the same defendant
• holding there was no duplicity where indictment charged “ongoing and continuous course of conduct, accomplished through three different methods,” repeated numerous times over the years, all involving the same defendant
• holding there was no duplicity where indictment charged “ongoing and continuous course of conduct, accomplished through three different methods,” repeated numerous times over the years, all involving the same defendant
• “Legal conclu- sions made by the trial court in reaching the decision to admit expert testimony are reviewed de novo.”
• “we have held that expert testimony is allowed to the effect that financial transactions did not comply with regulations and appeared to be fraudulent.”
• “we have held that expert testimony is allowed to the effect that financial transactions did not comply with regulations and appeared to be fraudulent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).