green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
47.9 score
“where a defendant fails to object to the jury instructions at trial, we review for plain error only.”
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Newsom
where a defendant fails to object to the jury instructions at trial, we review for plain error only.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
People v. Boyd
n appeal of a rule 608(b) ruling is precluded where the defendant did not testify at trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alexander Sittenfeld aka P.G. Sittenfeld
Start with § 666.23 We permit the government to aggregate transactions to reach the $5,000 jurisdictional minimum when they are “part of a single scheme.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 189 (6th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yvonne Craddock v. FedEx Corp. Servs., Inc.
Under this standard, we ask “whether the instructions, when taken as a whole, were so clearly wrong as to produce a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Miller, 734 F.3d 530, 538 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir. 1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Joseph V.
Thus the Schad rule should apply equally to analysis of multiple [actus reus] elements as well as analysis of multiple mens rea elements.’’ United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 188 (6th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Joseph V.
Thus the Schad rule should apply equally to analysis of multiple [actus reus] elements as well as analysis of multiple mens rea elements.’’ United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 188 (6th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Benchick
Because Benchick did not request a specific unanimity instruction below, we limit ourselves to plain error review, deciding “whether the instructions, when taken as a whole, were so clearly wrong as to produce a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Miller, 734 F.3d 530, 538 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir. 1992)). “[A]n improper jury instruction will rarely justify reversal of a criminal conviction when no 10 Case No. 16-2471, United States v. Benchick objection has been made at trial, . . . and an omitted or incomplete instructi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. George, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, e.g., United States v. Ransom, 642 F.3d 1285, 1291 (10th Cir. 2011); United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 186-87 (6th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David Casillas
But “a jury need not agree on which overt act, among several, was the means by which a crime was committed.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joshua Granderson
United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992); see R. 231, Trial Tr. at 311-12, PID 1979-80.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David Miller
Under this standard, “[w]e consider whether the instructions, when taken as a whole, were so clearly wrong as to produce a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992). “[A]n improper jury instruction will rarely justify reversal of a criminal conviction when no objection has been made at trial, ... and an omitted or incomplete instruction is even less likely to justify reversal, since such an instruction is not as prejudicial as a misstatement of the law.” United States v. Rayborn, 491 F.3d 513, 521 (6th Cir.2007) (internal quotation mark…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Gray
The first part of the unanimity issue requires making “a commonsense determination of a subject statute’s application and purpose in light of traditional notions of due process and fundamental fairness.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187-88 (6th Cir.1992) (citing Schad, 501 U.S. at 637 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 (plurality opinion)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Melvin Cromer
Furthermore, a defendant generally is not entitled to a specific unanimity instruction unless “1) a count is extremely complex, 2) there is variance between the indictment and the proof at trial, or 3) there is a tangible risk of jury confusion.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Newell
Cruzado-Laureano relied on a case from the Sixth Circuit, United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 189 (6th Cir.1992), which concluded that aggregation to meet the jurisdictional minimum is permissible when the transactions are part of a single scheme.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lewis Larch, Jr.
Moreover, “[a]n omitted or incomplete instruction is even less likely to justify reversal, since such an instruction is not as prejudicial as a misstatement of the law.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph White
In reviewing jury instructions under the plain error standard, we consider whether “the instructions, when taken as a whole, were so clearly wrong as to produce a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Wood, 364 F.3d 704, 708 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gunter
See United States v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 583, 586 (6th Cir. 1997); United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 189 (6th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gunter
See United States v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 583, 586 (6th Cir.1997); United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 189 (6th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Combs
When reviewing jury instructions for plain error, the test is “whether the instructions, when taken as a whole, were so clearly wrong as to produce a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Paul
See United States v. Cruzado-Laureano, 404 F.3d 470, 484 (1st Cir.2005); United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 189 (6th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cruzado-Laureano
United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 189 (6th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Haranda
In order to convict a defendant under this statute, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the “defendant (1) knowingly (2) stole or converted to [his use or] the use of another (3) something of value of the United States.” United States v. Forman, 180 F.3d 766, 769 (6th Cir.1999) (citing United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 188 (6th Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stone
In United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992), the Sixth Circuit considered a challenge to a conviction premised on a trial judge’s failure to give a specific unanimity instruction to the jury in a prosecution for theft of property from an entity receiving federal funds.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Collins
We consider whether the instructions, when taken as a whole, were so clearly wrong as to produce a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Edwin David Wood, II
(4×)
Wood concludes that the jury "was charged in a manner that allowed them to convict him on insufficient grounds — for legal conduct." 12 Because Wood did not object to the jury instructions at trial, we review the instructions under the "plain error" standard, considering whether "the instructions, when taken as a whole, were so clearly wrong as to produce a grave miscarriage of justice." United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wood
What followed this United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir. portion of the instruction, however, is significant in 1992). determining whether the instruction as a whole was erroneous.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wingo
Since Wingo admittedly failed to object to the jury instructions at trial, we review for plain error only, and must “consider whether the instructions, when taken as a whole, were so clearly wrong as to produce a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bartos
“When reviewing a jury instruction to which a defendant failed to object at trial, we review for plain error, which requires us to determine “whether the instructions, when taken as a whole, were so clearly wrong as to produce a grave miscarriage of justice.’ ” United States v. Humphrey, 287 F.3d 422, 439 (6th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Allgood
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Montel Lavelle Humphrey
(2×)
Standard of Review When reviewing a jury instruction to which a defendant failed to object at trial, we review for plain error, which requires us to determine “whether the instructions, when taken as a whole, were so clearly wrong as to produce a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992). 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hultman
See United States v. Wright, 160 F.3d 905, 907 (2d Cir.1998) (statute violated by administrators of care facility for using facility’s funds for personal spending money and to pay personal expenses); United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 186-87 (6th Cir. 1992) (statute violated by having employees paid by federally funded organization perform private contract work).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Burnette
United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cook
Standard of Review When reviewing a jury instruction to which a defendant failed to object at trial, such as the one at issue here, we review only for plain error, which requires us to determine “whether the instructions, when taken as a whole, were so clearly wrong as to produce a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992) (citation omitted). 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David Middleton
Standard of Review When reviewing a jury instruction to which a defendant failed to object at trial, such as the one at issue here, we review only for plain error, which requires us to determine “whether the instructions, •when taken as a whole, were so clearly wrong as to produce a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992) (citation omitted). *843 2.Analysis The indictment charged Middleton with concealing income and avoiding payment of income tax through the following affirmative conduct: 1. transacting business in the name of unincorpo…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James A. Kimes
To find the defendant guilty, every one of you must agree that the government has overcome the presumption of innocence with evidence that proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. * * * Either way, guilty or not guilty, your verdict must be unanimous." These instructions were sufficient to apprise the jury of the applicable law. 57 A specific unanimity instruction is ordinarily unnecessary unless: "(1) a count is extremely complex; (2) there is variance between the indictment and the proof at trial, or (3) there is a tangible risk of jury confusion." United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. HILL, JR.
Cir. 1992) (specific unanimity instruction required “when there is a genuine risk of juror confusion or of conviction resulting from different jurors concluding the defendant committed different acts”); United States v. Schiff, 801 F.2d 108, 114-115 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied 480 U.S. 945 (1987) (general unanimity instruction sufficient to ensure unanimous verdict unless “complexity of the evidence or other factors create a genuine danger of jury confusion”); United States v. Jackson, 879 F.2d 85, 89 (3d Cir. 1989) (specific unanimity instruction not necessary where evidence not comp…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gray
Although the Court gave a special heightened unanimity instruction in this case, such instructions generally are not required unless: “(1) a count is extremely complex; (2) there is variance between the indictment and the proof at trial; or (3) there is a tangible risk of jury confusion.” Shumpert Hood, 210 F.3d 660, 662 (quoting United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Shumpert Hood
Moreover, a specific unanimity instruction is generally not required unless: “1) a count is extremely complex; 2) there is variance between the indictment and the proof at trial; or 3) there is a tangible risk of jury confusion.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jannie L. Shumpert Hood
(2×)
Moreover, a specific unanimity instruction is generally not required unless: "1) a count is extremely complex; 2) there is variance between the indictment and the proof at trial; or 3) there is a tangible risk of jury confusion." United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Theodore S. Forman
The present charge requires proof that defendant (1) knowingly (2) stole or converted to the use of another (3) something of value of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 641 ; United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 188 (6th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gold Unlimited, Inc.
(2×)
This court reviews the entirety of the district court’s charge, see United States v. Horton, 847 F.2d 313, 322 (6th Cir.1988), and reverses only to remedy “a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Danny Owens (95-6357), Blake Owens (95-6405), Ira John Woodfin (95-6631), and Kaye Miller Bennett (95-6632)
United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Yashar
What the government points to as purportedly supporting its position that payments received during the time frame outlawed by limitations may be taken into account as long as some amount was received during the period that is not time-barred are cases such as United States v. Valentine, 63 F.3d 459, 464, 466 (6th Cir.1995) and its predecessor in the same *1011 circuit, United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 189 (6th Cir.1992)—cases that hold that where multiple embezzled or fraudulent receipts are part of a single scheme, they may be aggregated to establish the $5,000 statutory threshold.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mann
See Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 632-633 , 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2497-2498 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991)(a plurality of the Supreme Court observed that there is no general requirement under the federal constitution that a jury reach agreement on preliminary factual issues which underlie a verdict, either with respect to actus reus or mens rea, unless the "differences between means [of committing a crime] become so important that they may not reasonably be viewed as alternatives to a common end, but must be treated as differentiating what the Constitution requires to be treated as separate offenses”)…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Errol Eugene Washington
(2×)
United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992). 10 A specific unanimity instruction is required only when one of three situations exists: 1) the nature of the evidence is exceptionally complex; 2) there is a variance between indictment and proof at trial; or 3) there is a tangible indication of jury confusion, as when the jury has asked questions of the court.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Kimp
United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 189-90 (6th Cir. 1992); United States v. Weichert, 783 F.2d 23, 25 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 831 (1986); United States v. DiMatteo, 759 F.2d 831, 832-33 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 860 (1985). 6 State v. Wilson, 60 Wn.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Enrique Godinez (96-1441) and Juvenal Godinez (96-1501)
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 , 105 S.Ct. 460 , 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984); United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 189 (6th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Butler v. United States
(2×)
Defense counsel did not commit to testimony by the defendant, nor indicate the nature of his testimony if the defendant took the stand. [7] "Rule 609 governs the admissibility of evidence of a prior conviction." United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 189 (6th Cir.1992). [8] The same type of discretionary "weighing" is not present in situations calling for a legal conclusion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David W. Dolan
Because no objection was made at trial, defendant's claim is reviewable under the "plain error" standard. 1 United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992) (reviewing specific unanimity instructions).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert Alan Thomas (94-6648) and Carleen Thomas (94-6649)
Moreover, “[w]e consider whether the instructions, when taken as a whole, were so clearly wrong as to produce a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184, 187 (6th Cir.1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Carl Jennings and John Stepp
v.
Carl Jennings and John Stepp
19-3573.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Apr 28, 1992.
Published
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Carl JENNINGS and John Stepp, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 90-3503, 90-3504.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
April 28, 1992.
Before: MARTIN and NELSON, Circuit Judges; and WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge.
ORDER
1
On September 16, 1991, we issued an opinion in this case. 945 F.2d 129. On page 135, footnote 1 of the opinion, we stated that "[t]he version of the [sentencing] guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing is ordinarily applied." This court has stated, however, that when the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing provide for a higher range than those guidelines in effect at the time the crime was committed, an ex post facto problem exists and a court must not impose a sentence in excess of that allowed by the older guidelines. United States v. Nagi, 947 F.2d 211, 213 n. 1 (6th Cir.1991) (citing Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987)). In the present case, if the 1990 guidelines provide a higher sentencing range than the 1987 guidelines, the district court should sentence the defendants under the 1987 guidelines to avoid ex post facto problems.