Supreme Court of the United States · 2009-06-18
18usc1343: author: Fable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: background; posture: criminal; jury acquitted on conspiracy, securities fraud and four wire fraud counts and hung on insider trading / money laundering counts; on re-indictment the defendant moved to dismiss on double jeopardy (issue preclusion); denial affirmed by CA5; certiorari; result: not-decided; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
The wire fraud counts ended in a jury acquittal that no court reviews: there is no way to record "general verdict of acquittal, ground unknown" for a statute. `result` is forced to not-decided although the prosecution lost those counts at trial; a lower-court `not-satisfied [proved]` block would need an element id, and which element the jury doubted is exactly what is disputed.
The actual holding is a Double Jeopardy / issue-preclusion rule (an acquittal's preclusive force is unaffected by hung counts). No declared id; `scope procedural` under `scheme` is only a hook, and the polarity tags on its two context lines are forced (known gap: neutral context facts must take a side).
The competing readings of the acquittal (district court: no knowing and willful participation in the scheme; CA5: no insider information) would map to `intent` / `scheme`, but they appear only as quotations of the courts below and are left undecided, so they are not quoted.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 8
| Case | Scheme or artifice to defraud | Traditional money or property as an object | Material deception | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | Transmission or causation by wire, radio, television | Wire transmission for execution of scheme |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yeager v. United States — 557 U.S. 110 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 (18usc1343: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: background/procedural | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–8 of 8
| Case | Interstate or foreign transmission | Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim |
|---|---|---|
| Yeager v. United States — 557 U.S. 110 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 (18usc1343: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yeager v. United States — 557 U.S. 110 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc1343: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / procedural count: counts 3-6 (wire fraud; four Enron Broadband press releases in 2000); subject: count=counts 3-6 (wire fraud; four Enron Broadband press releases in 2000) The wire fraud counts matter only as acquittals whose preclusive effect on the hung insider-trading counts is in issue. The Court holds that hung counts play no part in the Ashe issue-preclusion analysis and remands; it does not decide what the acquittals necessarily determined (lack of insider information, per CA5, or non-participation in the scheme to defraud, per the district court), and says nothing about any element of 1343. | Unspecified route | Counts 3 through 6 alleged that petitioner and others committed four acts of wire fraud when they issued four EBS-related press releases in 2000.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0110-01; Unicode character offsets [3231:3376] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d49e4e2921f15336497bab82957f214236c36a42fb3495b042401d9f3bb6b887.The jury acquitted petitioner on the fraud counts but failed to reach a verdict on the insider trading counts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0110-01; Unicode character offsets [4661:4771] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d49e4e2921f15336497bab82957f214236c36a42fb3495b042401d9f3bb6b887. |