Wilson v. Mack

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “if the language in the indictment is information which the government hopes to properly prove at trial, it cannot be considered surplusage no matter how prejudicial it may be____”
• recognizing that an individual conspirator need not know every other member or Nos. 23-3311/3331/3333 United States v. Simpson, et al. Page 14 be aware of all the discrete criminal activities that furthered the conspiracy
• individual testified “to the alleged solicitation of him by [the defendant] to bribe a witness”
• testimony that witness was solicited to offer a bribe was offered to prove that solicitation was made and, therefore, was not hearsay
• application of clearly incorrect base level offense deemed clear error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).