Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

09-3840 U.S. v. Howard

By: dmc-admin//August 31, 2010//

09-3840 U.S. v. Howard

By: dmc-admin//August 31, 2010//

Listen to this article

Wire Fraud
Sufficiency of the evidence

Even if an indictment names particular victims, the government need not prove intent to harm those named victims.

“Although certainly the naming of First Marblehead and TERI in the superceding indictment was not good form, it was merely surplusage and did not raise the government’s burden of proof. United States v. LaBudda, 882 F.2d 244, 249-50 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Greene, 497 F.2d 1068, 1086 (7th Cir. 1974). It is sufficient that the government in this case proved that Howard intended to defraud the scheme’s victims, whomever they were, and such intent was established by examining the circumstances of the scheme itself, not by who was specifically named in the indictment.”


09-3840 U.S. v. Howard

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Springmann, J., Kanne, J.

Full Text


Should membership in state bar be mandatory?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests