evidentiary issues in conspiracy cases...
TRANSCRIPT
KIRK REDMONDFirst Assistant Federal Defender
EVIDENTIARY ISSUES IN CONSPIRACY CASES
CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY
PROVING MEMBERSHIP
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
POTPOURRI
THE SUPREME COURT
CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY
PROVING MEMBERSHIP
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS POTPOURRI THE SUPREME
COURT
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
TO INTRODUCE A STATEMENT UNDER FRE 801(D)(2)(E) THE PROPONENT MUST PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY BY THIS EVIDENTIARY STANDARD
ANSWER
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PART OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE
TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
IN FURTHERANCE
THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVEMEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORETHAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS ISREQUIRED
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
PROVING MEMBERSHIP
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
POTPOURRI
THE SUPREME COURT
CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY
PROVING MEMBERSHIP
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS POTPOURRI THE SUPREME
COURT
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
TO INTRODUCE A STATEMENT UNDER FRE 801(D)(2)(E) THE PROPONENT MUST PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY BY THIS EVIDENTIARY STANDARD
ANSWER
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PART OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE
TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
IN FURTHERANCE
THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVEMEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORETHAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS ISREQUIRED
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
POTPOURRI
THE SUPREME COURT
CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY
PROVING MEMBERSHIP
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS POTPOURRI THE SUPREME
COURT
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
TO INTRODUCE A STATEMENT UNDER FRE 801(D)(2)(E) THE PROPONENT MUST PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY BY THIS EVIDENTIARY STANDARD
ANSWER
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PART OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE
TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
IN FURTHERANCE
THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVEMEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORETHAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS ISREQUIRED
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
POTPOURRI
THE SUPREME COURT
CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY
PROVING MEMBERSHIP
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS POTPOURRI THE SUPREME
COURT
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
TO INTRODUCE A STATEMENT UNDER FRE 801(D)(2)(E) THE PROPONENT MUST PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY BY THIS EVIDENTIARY STANDARD
ANSWER
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PART OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE
TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
IN FURTHERANCE
THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVEMEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORETHAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS ISREQUIRED
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE SUPREME COURT
CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY
PROVING MEMBERSHIP
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS POTPOURRI THE SUPREME
COURT
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
TO INTRODUCE A STATEMENT UNDER FRE 801(D)(2)(E) THE PROPONENT MUST PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY BY THIS EVIDENTIARY STANDARD
ANSWER
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PART OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE
TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
IN FURTHERANCE
THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVEMEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORETHAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS ISREQUIRED
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY
PROVING MEMBERSHIP
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS POTPOURRI THE SUPREME
COURT
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
TO INTRODUCE A STATEMENT UNDER FRE 801(D)(2)(E) THE PROPONENT MUST PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY BY THIS EVIDENTIARY STANDARD
ANSWER
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PART OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE
TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
IN FURTHERANCE
THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVEMEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORETHAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS ISREQUIRED
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TO INTRODUCE A STATEMENT UNDER FRE 801(D)(2)(E) THE PROPONENT MUST PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY BY THIS EVIDENTIARY STANDARD
ANSWER
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PART OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE
TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
IN FURTHERANCE
THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVEMEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORETHAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS ISREQUIRED
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PART OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE
TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
IN FURTHERANCE
THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVEMEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORETHAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS ISREQUIRED
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PART OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE
TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
IN FURTHERANCE
THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVEMEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORETHAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS ISREQUIRED
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
FALSE
TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
IN FURTHERANCE
THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVEMEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORETHAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS ISREQUIRED
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
IN FURTHERANCE
THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVEMEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORETHAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS ISREQUIRED
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
IN FURTHERANCE
THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVEMEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORETHAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS ISREQUIRED
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVEMEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORETHAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS ISREQUIRED
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE LAST OVERT ACT
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndashONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TWENTY YEARS
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
LIZARD
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TESTIMONIAL
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER KIND)
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
SEVERANCE
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
CASE NAMES
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE SUPREME COURT
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
MORE FUN WITH STATUTES OF LIMITATION
VARIANCE (NO THE OTHER
KIND) SEVERANCE CASE NAMES THE SUPREME
COURT
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
BILL OF PARTICULARS
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
RULE 14
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
HICKS V OKLAHOMA
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
ANSWER
FIVE YEARS THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS EVIDENCE IS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE NOT SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
WHO WAS VOTED COSMOPOLITANrsquoS SEXIEST MAN IN JUNE 1982
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SECURITIES FRAUD HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
SIX YEARS
- Slide Number 1
- Slide Number 2
- Slide Number 3
- Slide Number 4
- Slide Number 5
- Slide Number 6
- Slide Number 7
- Slide Number 8
- PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PART OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY
- FALSE
- TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
- IN FURTHERANCE
- THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVE MEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORE THAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS IS REQUIRED
- THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
- FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
- 18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
- 371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
- THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
- THE LAST OVERT ACT
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
- FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndash ONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
- A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
- ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
- A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
- TWENTY YEARS
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
- TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
- THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
- LIZARD
- THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
- THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
- THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
- BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
- TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
- FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
- THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
- SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
- TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
- FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
- WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
- THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
- THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
- THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
- THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
- TESTIMONIAL
- TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
- FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
- TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
- FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
- TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
- TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
- TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
- FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
- ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
- CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
- Slide Number 58
- Slide Number 59
- Slide Number 60
- Slide Number 61
- Slide Number 62
- Slide Number 63
- Slide Number 64
- THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
- THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
- DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
- NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
- TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
- TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
- YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
- BILL OF PARTICULARS
- A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
- MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
- IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
- THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
- THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
- THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
- TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
- FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
- THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
- A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
- THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
- RULE 14
- SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
- MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
- THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
- CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
- TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
- FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
- THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
- THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
- A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
- HICKS V OKLAHOMA
- USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
- UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
- USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
- SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
- PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
- BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
- CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
- UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
- THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
- BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
- THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
- UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
- THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
- WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
- THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
- THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
- THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
- STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
- FINAL JEOPARDY QUESTION
- A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
- FIVE YEARS THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS EVIDENCE IS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE NOT SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
- WHO WAS VOTED COSMOPOLITANrsquoS SEXIEST MAN IN JUNE 1982
- Slide Number 117
- CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SECURITIES FRAUD HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
- SIX YEARS
-
WHO WAS VOTED COSMOPOLITANrsquoS SEXIEST MAN IN JUNE 1982
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SECURITIES FRAUD HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
SIX YEARS
- Slide Number 1
- Slide Number 2
- Slide Number 3
- Slide Number 4
- Slide Number 5
- Slide Number 6
- Slide Number 7
- Slide Number 8
- PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PART OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY
- FALSE
- TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
- IN FURTHERANCE
- THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVE MEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORE THAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS IS REQUIRED
- THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
- FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
- 18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
- 371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
- THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
- THE LAST OVERT ACT
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
- FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndash ONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
- A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
- ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
- A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
- TWENTY YEARS
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
- TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
- THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
- LIZARD
- THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
- THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
- THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
- BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
- TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
- FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
- THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
- SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
- TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
- FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
- WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
- THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
- THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
- THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
- THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
- TESTIMONIAL
- TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
- FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
- TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
- FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
- TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
- TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
- TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
- FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
- ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
- CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
- Slide Number 58
- Slide Number 59
- Slide Number 60
- Slide Number 61
- Slide Number 62
- Slide Number 63
- Slide Number 64
- THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
- THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
- DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
- NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
- TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
- TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
- YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
- BILL OF PARTICULARS
- A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
- MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
- IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
- THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
- THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
- THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
- TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
- FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
- THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
- A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
- THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
- RULE 14
- SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
- MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
- THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
- CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
- TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
- FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
- THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
- THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
- A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
- HICKS V OKLAHOMA
- USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
- UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
- USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
- SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
- PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
- BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
- CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
- UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
- THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
- BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
- THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
- UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
- THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
- WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
- THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
- THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
- THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
- STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
- FINAL JEOPARDY QUESTION
- A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
- FIVE YEARS THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS EVIDENCE IS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE NOT SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
- WHO WAS VOTED COSMOPOLITANrsquoS SEXIEST MAN IN JUNE 1982
- Slide Number 117
- CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SECURITIES FRAUD HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
- SIX YEARS
-
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SECURITIES FRAUD HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
ANSWER
SIX YEARS
- Slide Number 1
- Slide Number 2
- Slide Number 3
- Slide Number 4
- Slide Number 5
- Slide Number 6
- Slide Number 7
- Slide Number 8
- PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PART OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY
- FALSE
- TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
- IN FURTHERANCE
- THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVE MEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORE THAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS IS REQUIRED
- THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
- FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
- 18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
- 371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
- THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
- THE LAST OVERT ACT
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
- FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndash ONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
- A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
- ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
- A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
- TWENTY YEARS
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
- TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
- THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
- LIZARD
- THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
- THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
- THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
- BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
- TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
- FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
- THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
- SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
- TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
- FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
- WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
- THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
- THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
- THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
- THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
- TESTIMONIAL
- TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
- FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
- TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
- FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
- TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
- TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
- TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
- FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
- ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
- CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
- Slide Number 58
- Slide Number 59
- Slide Number 60
- Slide Number 61
- Slide Number 62
- Slide Number 63
- Slide Number 64
- THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
- THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
- DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
- NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
- TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
- TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
- YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
- BILL OF PARTICULARS
- A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
- MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
- IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
- THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
- THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
- THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
- TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
- FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
- THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
- A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
- THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
- RULE 14
- SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
- MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
- THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
- CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
- TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
- FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
- THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
- THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
- A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
- HICKS V OKLAHOMA
- USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
- UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
- USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
- SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
- PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
- BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
- CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
- UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
- THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
- BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
- THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
- UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
- THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
- WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
- THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
- THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
- THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
- STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
- FINAL JEOPARDY QUESTION
- A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
- FIVE YEARS THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS EVIDENCE IS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE NOT SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
- WHO WAS VOTED COSMOPOLITANrsquoS SEXIEST MAN IN JUNE 1982
- Slide Number 117
- CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SECURITIES FRAUD HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
- SIX YEARS
-
SIX YEARS
- Slide Number 1
- Slide Number 2
- Slide Number 3
- Slide Number 4
- Slide Number 5
- Slide Number 6
- Slide Number 7
- Slide Number 8
- PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PART OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY
- FALSE
- TO BE ADMISSIBLE THE STATEMENTS MUST (1) BE IN THE COURSE AND (2) IN ____________ OF THE CONSPIRACY
- IN FURTHERANCE
- THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT TO PROVE MEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY MORE THAN CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS IS REQUIRED
- THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash DEMONSTRATING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DECLARANT AND THE DEFENDANT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE RULE
- FALSE ndash UNITED STATES V SILVERMAN SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED THE DECLARANT TO THE AIRPORT OSTENSIBLY TO PICK UP DRUGS IS NOT ENOUGH
- 18 USC 371 PRESCRIBES THIS AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS
- 371 HAS NO INTERNAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
- THIS EVENT BEGINS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONSPIRACY CASES
- THE LAST OVERT ACT
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash ALL ACTS OF CONCEALMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
- FALSE ndash GRUNEWALD V UNITED STATES ndash ONLY ACTS OF CONCEALMENT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY TOLL THE STATUTE NOT ACTS DONE TO COVER UP THE CRIME
- A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED OR THIS
- ITS OBJECTIVES HAVE FAILED
- A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL MAJOR WORKS OF ART HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
- TWENTY YEARS
- TRUE OR FALSE ndash THE LONE CONSPIRATOR RULE REQUIRES THAT IF ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE ACQUITTED BUT ONE THAT SINGLE CONSPIRATORS CONVICTION BE OVERTURNED
- TRUE ndash BUT THE RULE HAS BEEN ABANDONED
- THIS POPULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOLDS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS RUN BY A ldquoBABYLONIAN BROTHERHOODrdquo OF INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA BOXCAR WILLIE AND CNN ANCHOR BRIAN TODD WHO SHIFT FORMS BETWEEN HUMAN AND THIS KIND OF ANIMAL
- LIZARD
- THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THIS PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM A CONSPIRACY
- THE DEFENDANT ndash SMITH V UNITED STATES 133 S CT 714 (2013) IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED
- THIS CASE HELD THAT CO-CONSPIRATOR EVIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
- BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 107 SCT 2775 (1987)
- TRUE OF FALSE ndash THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ENDS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFEATED ITS OBJECT
- FALSE IN UNITED STATES V JIMENEZ RECIO 123 S CT 819 (2003 THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN POLICE HAVE FRUSTRATED THE CONSPIRACYrsquoS OBJECTIVE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE NOT ABANDONDED THE CONSPIRACY OR WITHDRAWN ARE STILL LIABLE
- THIS CASE HELD THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE 21 USC 846 DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
- SHABANI V UNITED STATES 115 SCt 382 (1994) THE SUPREME COURT HAS REGULARLY HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT IN THE STATUTE THE COURT WILL NOT READ ONE IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE 18 USC 371 DOES HAVE AN OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
- TRUE OR FALSE- PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY THAT ESTABLISHES JOINT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLACE SEARCHED ESTABLISHES STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH
- FALSE- UNITED STATES V PADILLA 113 SCT 1936 (1993) EACH CONSPIRATOR MUST HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PLACE SEARCHED
- WHICH IS OLDER- THE STATEMENT THAT CONSPIRACY IS THE DARLING OF THE MODERN PROSECUTORS NURSERY OR HELEN MIRREN
- THE STATEMENT HELEN MIRREN WAS BORN IN 1945 THE SECOND CIRCUIT COINED THIS PHRASE IN HARRISON V UNITED STATES 7 F2D 259 (2ND CIR 1925)
- THE COURT MAY DENY A JAMES HEARING AND PROVISIONALLY ADMIT HEARSAY EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT TRIAL
- THE EVIDENCE WILL ldquoCONNECT UPrdquo PROVING THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED AT TRIAL
- THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS FOUND THAT ADMITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS POSES NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT WHAT
- TESTIMONIAL
- TRUE OR FALSE- IDENTIFICATION OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENT
- FALSE- ONLY IF IT OCCURS DURING THE CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES V NAJERA 2013 WL 2152199 (D KAN 2013)
- TRUE OR FALSE- ALL MEMBERS OF THE DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY
- FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS NOT MERELY AT THE END OF A DRUG DISTRIBUTION CHAIN AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE DRUGS FOR PROFIT UNITED STATES V MCINTYRE 836 F2D 467 (10TH CIR 1987)
- TRUE OR FALSE- THE GOVERNMENT CAN INTRODUCE CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY EVEN IF IT FAILS TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY
- TRUE- EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PEOPLE THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION REMAINS APPLICABLE
- TRUE OR FALSE- STATEMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMISSIBLE AS CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY MAY STILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER BRUTON V UNITED STATES
- FALSE- IF ADMISSIBLE AS HEARSAY THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL AND THEREFORE NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER BRUTON UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
- ENGLAND HAS ABOLISHED ALL COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY OFFENSES EXCEPT THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND THIS CRIME WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOKS IN CASE I TRAVEL TO BRITAIN
- CONSPIRACY TO OUTRAGE PUBLIC DECENCY
- Slide Number 58
- Slide Number 59
- Slide Number 60
- Slide Number 61
- Slide Number 62
- Slide Number 63
- Slide Number 64
- THE FILING ON AN INDICTMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNLESShellip
- THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT ldquoBROADENS OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDSrdquo THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT UNITED STATES V QAYYUM 451 F3D 1214 (10TH CIR 2006)
- DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE THE TENTH CIRCUIT TO FOLLOW GRUNEWALD
- NO UNITED STATES V THOMPSON 518 F3D 832 (10TH CIR 2008) (ATTORNEYrsquoS PHONE CALL WHICH AGENT VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORESTALL A TAX INVESTIGATION WAS AN OPERATIVE EVENT IN SOL ANALYSIS)
- TRUE OR FALSE- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY INCREASE A DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE
- TRUE- RELEVANT CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE SOL STILL COUNTS UNDER USSG 1B13- UNITED STATES V JAYNES 75 F3D 1493 (10TH CIR 1996)
- YOU MAY REQUEST THIS METHOD OF RELIEF TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF SEVERAL OFFENSES ALLEGED IN ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND THUS COULD PROPERLY BE BROUGHT IN THAT COUNT
- BILL OF PARTICULARS
- A VARIANCE OCCURS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BUT THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS PROOF ESTABLISHES WHAT
- MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES
- IF ESTABLISHED A VARIANCE REQUIRES REVERSAL ONLY IF IT AFFECTS WHAT
- THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
- THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOES NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT ANY VARIANCE AFFECTS WHAT
- THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
- TRUE OR FALSE- PROOF THAT TWO CHARGED CONSPIRATORS WERE ACTUALLY COMPETING DRUG SUPPLIERS DEMONSTRATES A VARIANCE
- FALSE- UNITED STATES V SERRATO 742 F3D 461 (10TH CIR 2014) TWO COMPETING SOURCES OF SUPPLY WERE INTERDEPENDENT BECAUSE ONE SOURCE HELPED WEIGH ANOTHERrsquoS SHIPMENT ONE TIME WITHOUT COMPENSATION
- THE PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONSPIRACIES MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SOLVED WITH WHAT
- A JURY INSTRUCTION OF COURSE
- THIS RULE GOVERNS SEVERANCE REQUESTS
- RULE 14
- SEVERANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK THAT A JOINT TRIAL WOULD COMPROMISE A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PREVENT THE JURY FROM WHAT
- MAKING A RELIABLE JUDGMENT ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE
- THIS IS THE WAY TO OBTAIN A SEVERANCE
- CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO AGREE
- TRUE OR FALSE- APPELLATE COURTS ENJOY REVERSING CONVICTIONS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED A SEVERANCE MOTIONS
- FALSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS COMMENTED THAT DEFENDANTS RAISING SEVERANCE CLAIMS ON APPEAL ldquoFACE A STEEP CHALLENGErdquo UNITED STATES V CLARK 717 F3D 790 (10TH CIR 2013)
- THIS TEST HELPS APPELLATE COURTS DETERMINE WHETHER A FAILURE TO SEVER COMPROMISES A SPECIFIC TRIAL RIGHT
- THE MCCONNELL TEST ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V MCCONNELL 749 F2D 1441 (10TH CIR 1984) THIS TEST EXAMINES ldquo1) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WOULD IN FACT TESTIFY AT THE MOVANTS SEVERED TRIAL AND WAIVE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANTS THEORY OF DEFENSE 3) THE EXCULPATORY NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TESTIMONY 4) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPEACHED 5) THE EXTENT OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE ABSENCE819 OF THE TESTIMONY 6) THE EFFECT OF A SEVERANCE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMY [AND] 7) THE TIMELINESS OF THE MOTIONrdquo
- A DEFENDANT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOT TO BE SENTENCED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OR A STATE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
- HICKS V OKLAHOMA
- USSG 2K21(B)(6) IS AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE ALMOST EVERY DEFENDANTrsquoS SENTENCE OR THEY ARE FINALLY ADMITTING WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE
- UNITED STATES V JUSTICE
- USE OF THE MAILS CAN BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF A MAIL FRAUD OR I FINALLY GET TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT IT HAD TO DO IT PRO SE
- SCHMUCK V UNITED STATES
- PARTNERSHIP WAS A SCAM FOR TAX AVOIDANCE OR WHY GOTHAM IS GOING TO HELL THESE DAYS
- BATMAN V COMMISSIONER
- CASE ESTABLISHING THE ldquoPLAIN FEELrdquo EXCEPTION OR
- UNITED STATES V DICKERSON
- THIS CASE APPROVED AND DEFINED THE CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
- BOURJAILY V UNITED STATES 483 US 171 (1987)
- THIS CASE FOUND THAT THE DRUG CONSPIRACY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
- UNITED STATES V SHABANI 513 US 10 (1994)
- THIS CASE PERMITS VENUE TO LIE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE AN OVERT ACT IS COMMITTED EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE AT ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT
- WHITFIELD V UNITED STATES 543 US 209 (2005)
- THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
- THIS CASE HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW HE WITHDREW FROM A CONSPIRACY
- THIS CASE COMES UP WHEN LAWYERS DONrsquoT KNOW THE LAW
- STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON 466 US 668 (1984)
- FINAL JEOPARDY QUESTION
- A CO-CONSPIRATOR TESTIFIES THAT THE DEFENDANT DISTRIBUTED 40 GRAMS OF CRACK THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 400 GRAMS OF CRACK IF CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO THIS MANDATORY MINIMUM
- FIVE YEARS THE GOVERNMENTrsquoS EVIDENCE IS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE NOT SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
- WHO WAS VOTED COSMOPOLITANrsquoS SEXIEST MAN IN JUNE 1982
- Slide Number 117
- CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SECURITIES FRAUD HAS THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
- SIX YEARS
-