PIETSCH

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Porcelli, 865 F.2d 1352 (2d Cir. 1989)
  …an” from the State, as meaning that he could not have thereby had the specific intent. The specific intent required under the mail fraud statute is the intent to defraud, e.g., United States v. Rodolitz, 786 F. 2d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826, 107 S.Ct. 102, 93 L.Ed.2d 52 (1986), and not the intent to violate a statute. Porcelli intended to defraud the State. We read Katz’s testimony as showing th^t Porcelli knew full well that he was not simply “borrowing” money from the State. Accordin…
• United States v. Bordallo, 857 F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1988)
  …cond Circuit has also held that making false statements to convince another to lie in an official proceeding does constitute the misleading conduct required to violate the statute. United States v. Rodolitz, 786 F. 2d 77, 82 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826, 107 S.Ct. 102, 93 L.Ed.2d 52 (1986). “The most obvious example of a section 1512 violation may be the situation where a defendant tells a potential witness a false story as if the story were true, intending that the witness believe the story and te…
• United States v. Eisen, 974 F.2d 246 (2d Cir. 1992)
  …cated. Moreover, Weinstein’s claim that perjured testimony suborned by the defendants was directed at the civil juries rather than at the other litigants ignores relevant case law. In United States v. Rodolitz, 786 F. 2d 77 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826, 107 S.Ct. 102, 93 L.Ed.2d 52 (1986), the defendant had brought a fraudulent civil action against his insurance company and recovered a money judgment from the company at trial. In affirming the defendant’s conviction for mail fraud, this Court expl…