Second Circuit· 7/28/1994

United States v. Viola

Citations

35 F.3d 37
1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 25868

How courts have described this case

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

concluding, based on modified plain error review, that instruction regarding participation in RICO enterprise did affect substantial rights
reversing conviction of defendant who did light clean-up and maintenance work on the ground that the government had failed to show that he exercised any \discretionary authority\ or that he \was even aware of the broader enterprise\
\The better view is that Rule 52(b) is the sole source of our authority to correct errors not preserved by objection.\
“A defendant can be guilty of conspiring to violate a law, even if he is not among the class of persons who could commit the crime directly.”
defendant’s “position as a forklift operator did not involve a substantial amount of discretionary judgment, and he was not subject to relaxed supervision because of the position”
Rule 52(b) can be invoked even where the error was not clear or obvious at the time it was committed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jacobs, McLaughlin, Walker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

79 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Viola

7 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.