Terry v. Enomoto

Parentheticals

• testimony concerning the defendant’s physical appearance around the time of the crime is not rebuttal evidence within the meaning of Rule 12.1

  United States v. David Lee Pace

• “At a minimum, a 1983 plaintiff must show that a supervisory official at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct.”

  Eckford-El v. Toombs

• RICO conspiracy defendants need only agree to be a member of the conspiracy; they need not agree to commit two predicate offenses individually

  Flinders v. Datasec Corp.

• “At a minimum, a 1983 plaintiff must show that a supervisory official at least implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct.”

  Weaver v. Toombs

• "The statutory language, however, does not require proof that a defendant participated personally, or agreed to participate personally, in two predicate offenses. Read in context, section 1962(d

  United States v. Dennis E. Pryba, Phe, Inc., Amicus Curiae. United States of America v. Barbara A. Pryba, Phe, Inc., Amicus Curiae. United States of America v. Educational Books, Inc., Phe, Inc., Amicus Curiae. United States of America v. Jennifer G. Williams, Phe, Inc., Amicus Curiae

• “[T]he testimony ... fails to establish that appellees intentionally or negligently deprived Bellamy of his meals to the degree that a jury could find an Eighth Amendment violation.”

  Prisoners' Legal Ass'n v. Roberson

• “The statutory language, however, does not require proof that a defendant participated personally, or agreed to participate personally, in two predicate offenses. Read in context, section 1962(d

  United States v. Pryba

• liability under section 1983 in a defendant’s personal capacity must be predicated upon some showing of direct, active participation in the alleged misconduct

  Johnson v. Turner

• jury reasonably could infer that defendant turned fugitive because of co-conspirator's cooperation

  United States v. Anthony Pungitore, Jr., in No. 89-1371. United States of America v. Joseph Grande. In No. 89-1372. United States of America v. Francis Iannarella, Jr., in No. 89-1393. United States of America v. Phillip Narducci. In No. 89-1395. United States of America v. Salvatore Scafidi. In No. 89-1396. United States of America v. Nicholas Virgilio. In No. 89-1397. United States of America v. Charles Iannece. In No. 89-1400. United States of America v. Salvatore Wayne Grande. In No. 89-1401. United States of America v. Joseph Pungitore. In No. 89-1402. United States of America v. Frank Narducci, Jr., in No. 89-1403. United States of America v. Ralph Staino, Jr., in No. 89-1404. United States of America v. Salvatore J. Merlino. In No. 89-1409. United States of America v. Nicodemo Scarfo. In No. 89-1446. United States of America v. Joseph Ciancaglini. In No. 89-1448

• jury reasonably could infer that defendant turned fugitive because of co-conspirator’s cooperation

  United States v. Pungitore

• “Proof of an agreement the objective of which is a substantive violation of RICO (such as conducting the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering) is sufficient to establish a violation of section 1962(d).”

  In Re National Mortgage Equity Corp. Mortgage Pool Certificates Securities Litigation