Legal Opinion
United States v. Michael I. Blumenthal
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 20, 1991No. 90-10137PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TAYLOR, District Judge:
We are asked to hold that intent to deceive is a necessary element in the crime of making false statements to a federally insured institution (18 U.S.C. § 1014 (1988)). We hold the intent that must be shown is intent to influence, and intent to deceive is not an element of the offense. Therefore, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant Michael I. Blumenthal was convicted on seven counts of making false statements to a federally insured savings and loan, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. He contends it was error not to instruct the jury that a specific intent to deceive is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kay v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United States v. J. Joseph Kennedy, United States of America v. Robert J. Myers, United States of America v. Lawrence F. CarlsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- United States v. WoodCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- United States v. Jerry D. Smith, Paul D. Smith, and G. Michael KirchoffCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- United States v. William Paul ScottCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- United States v. SarnoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9376, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,355 United States of America v. Anthony C. Sarno and Charles W. Knapp, (Two Cases). United States of America v. Joseph v. NashCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- United States v. WhitmoreCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Kakkar v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022
- United States v. DoostDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.