BROWN

v.

MARYLAND ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Eisen, 974 F.2d 246 (2d Cir. 1992)
  …efraud that comports squarely with the McNally definition of mail fraud because the Eisen indictment explicitly alleges a scheme to deprive the victims of money. Weinstein relies on United States v. Eckhardt, 843 F. 2d 989 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 839, 109 S.Ct. 106, 102 L.Ed.2d 81 (1988). In Eckhardt, the defendant had operated a phony tax shelter scheme and had committed perjury and submitted false documents in a civil proceeding brought by his investors against the IRS to challenge disallowanc…
• Kurtis B. Borre v. United States, 940 F.2d 215 (7th Cir. 1991)
  …who invoked their right to a jury trial, the government’s use of an intangible rights theory need not be fatal when the defendant has entered a plea of guilty. See United States v. Eckhardt, 843 F. 2d 989, 997 (7th Cir.) (guilty plea), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 839, 109 S.Ct. 106, 102 L.Ed.2d 81 (1988); see also Toulabi, 875 F. 2d at 125 (noting that indictment could state offense under mail fraud statute even though it was “brimming with the buzz-words of the intangible rights doc [*219] trine”); cf. Ranke v.…
• United States v. Smith, 918 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1990)
  …objectives, if each objective constitutes a fraud separate from the others the removal of one does not disturb the indictment’s validity in charging the other frauds. See United States v. Eckhardt, 843 F. 2d 989, 996-98 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 839, 109 S.Ct. 106, 102 L.Ed.2d 81 (1988), O’Leary v. United States, 856 F. 2d 1142, 1143 (8th Cir.1988). Applying these principles to the case before us, we note that the redacted indictment differed from the one used at defendants’ first trial only i…