holding that to satisfy the element of specific intent to defraud needed to convict for mail fraud, the government must show that the defendant knowingly made a material misrepresentation (or knowingly omitted a material fact) for “the purpose of inducing the victim of the fraud to part with property or undertake some action that he would not otherwise do absent the misrepresentation or omission.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that to satisfy the element of specific intent to defraud needed to convict for mail fraud, the government must show that the defendant knowingly made a material misrepresentation (or knowingly omitted a material fact) for “the purpose of inducing the victim of the fraud to part with property or undertake some action that he would not otherwise do absent the misrepresentation or omission.”
- concluding that the erroneous admission of evidence, which included in part the reading of an appellate court’s detailed factual findings and conclusions during closing argument, was likely prejudicial
- holding that error was not harmless “in light of[, inter alia,] the repeated references the prosecution made” to improper evidence that was materially suggestive of the defendant’s guilt
- finding defendant prosecuted under § 1341 was entitled to a jury instruction cautioning the jury that they could not convict him merely because he knowingly violated a state law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment and in all but Part II A of this court’s opinion. Part II A concludes that in requiring the defendant to read the jury the text of the Ohio court of appeals decision, the district court violated Rule 608(b), Fed.R.Evid. This may be so, but I would not reach the applicability of Rule 608(b). It seems to me that the evidence ought to have been excluded under Rule 403 in any event. 1 See Nipper v. Snipes, 7 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir.1993).