3 ms·

Actually, Salmon's summary of the predicates for wire fraud is spot-on. The data support this, and my anecdata support this. Seeing is believing. The jury in

Actually, Salmon's summary of the predicates for wire fraud is spot-on. The data support this, and my anecdata support this. Seeing is believing. The jury instructions serve no purpose other than to frustrate jurors, and frustrated jurors (especially those that survive the venire) tend to convict. Sometimes the ends justify the means, and sometimes not. I'd like to see your source for "multiple mitigating factors for 'intent to defraud'", because other than a good-faith instruction, which is optional and the judge and prosecutor will fight to keep out, there aren't any in any model jury instruction I've read (and I've read many of them, multiple times). I really hope you have one, because in case I need to file a 2255, a missed jury instruction might help.

tptacek 8y ago
It is simply not the case that "lie + wire = wire fraud". Salmon's summary is obviously not spot-on. You still don't seem to be following my point regarding jury instructions. My argument isn't that they protect defendants because juries receive them; it's simply that they offer a concise summary of the predicates for felony crimes. A jury's receipt of any given instruction is immaterial.
- mchannon 8y ago
  I follow your point, but it's an inaccurate point. Take for example, the 9th circuit model jury instruction for Wire Fraud (18 USC 1343). Numerous legal experts find that it is not a concise summary, but one that leaves out multiple major points. For example, http://www.kmbllaw.com/intent-to-defraud-is-misdefined-in-the-ninth-circuit-model-instructions/ http://www.kmbllaw.com/intent-to-defraud-is-misdefined-in-th... My corresponding jury instruction omitted that a loss had to be caused, or explained, really explained, what "materially" actually meant, or how important it was. If you decided to tell a little fib at the corner store and told the cashier you were Barack Obama as you bought a gallon of milk, that would count as wire fraud according to these jury instructions. Not comprehensive -> Not concise.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    The example you just provided reinforces rather than rebuts my argument; it says that model jury instructions don't go far enough in explaining how high the bar is to connect a "lie" with fraud in a wire fraud charge. That you think this cite weakens my argument reinforces my belief that we're simply talking past each other. My original comment wasn't about jury instructions. It was about the fact that wire fraud isn't simply "a lie plus a wire".
    - mchannon 8y ago
      The argument I rebutted was that Salmon's quote (lie + wire = conviction) was incorrect. If you get the jury to vote "guilty", then you have proven guilt, even if you have done so using zero logic or critical thinking skills, or provided them with falsehoods and misinformation. That's Salmon's point, and it's true. In theory, and according to the law, wire fraud is not simply a lie plus a wire. In practice, that's exactly what wire fraud is. There shouldn't be a gulf between the two, but thanks to our lawmakers, judges, and US attorneys, there is.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Even that isn't true, as you should know, having taken a felony conviction to an appeals court. But it also has nothing to do with my argument. Since we're now several round trips into talking past each other, I'm going to abandon the thread here.

tptacek 8y ago

It is simply not the case that "lie + wire = wire fraud". Salmon's summary is obviously not spot-on. You still don't seem to be following my point regarding jury instructions. My argument isn't that they protect defendants because juries receive them; it's simply that they offer a concise summary of the predicates for felony crimes. A jury's receipt of any given instruction is immaterial.

mchannon 8y ago
I follow your point, but it's an inaccurate point. Take for example, the 9th circuit model jury instruction for Wire Fraud (18 USC 1343). Numerous legal experts find that it is not a concise summary, but one that leaves out multiple major points. For example, http://www.kmbllaw.com/intent-to-defraud-is-misdefined-in-the-ninth-circuit-model-instructions/ http://www.kmbllaw.com/intent-to-defraud-is-misdefined-in-th... My corresponding jury instruction omitted that a loss had to be caused, or explained, really explained, what "materially" actually meant, or how important it was. If you decided to tell a little fib at the corner store and told the cashier you were Barack Obama as you bought a gallon of milk, that would count as wire fraud according to these jury instructions. Not comprehensive -> Not concise.
- tptacek 8y ago
  The example you just provided reinforces rather than rebuts my argument; it says that model jury instructions don't go far enough in explaining how high the bar is to connect a "lie" with fraud in a wire fraud charge. That you think this cite weakens my argument reinforces my belief that we're simply talking past each other. My original comment wasn't about jury instructions. It was about the fact that wire fraud isn't simply "a lie plus a wire".
  - mchannon 8y ago
    The argument I rebutted was that Salmon's quote (lie + wire = conviction) was incorrect. If you get the jury to vote "guilty", then you have proven guilt, even if you have done so using zero logic or critical thinking skills, or provided them with falsehoods and misinformation. That's Salmon's point, and it's true. In theory, and according to the law, wire fraud is not simply a lie plus a wire. In practice, that's exactly what wire fraud is. There shouldn't be a gulf between the two, but thanks to our lawmakers, judges, and US attorneys, there is.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Even that isn't true, as you should know, having taken a felony conviction to an appeals court. But it also has nothing to do with my argument. Since we're now several round trips into talking past each other, I'm going to abandon the thread here.