1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 920 F.Supp.
  5. 920 F.Supp. 1078 (1996)
 

U.S. v. KING

No. SA CR 95-102-GLT.

920 F.Supp. 1078 (1996)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Will B. KING, aka William Beckingham, Defendant.

United States District Court, C.D. California, Southern Division.

April 3, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Nora M. Manella, United States Attorney, Richard E. Drooyan, Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division, David R. Fields, Assistant United States Attorney, Los Angeles, California for Plaintiff United States of America.

Maria E. Stratton, Federal Public Defender, H. Dean Steward, Directing Attorney, Leon L. Peterson, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Santa Ana, California for Defendant Will B. King.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

TAYLOR, District Judge.

After considering apparently inconsistent Ninth Circuit authority, the court holds a specific intent to threaten is not a necessary element of 18 U.S.C. § 876, mailing a threatening communication.

I. BACKGROUND

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of mailing a threatening communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876. Defendant now moves for a...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases