Legal Opinion
United States v. Driggers
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 18, 2009No. 07-30190PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Chief Judge KOZINSKI; Concurrence by Judge RAWLINSON.
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
We consider the intent requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 1958, which prohibits using interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire.
Facts
Paul Driggers was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1958 by causing Matthew Robinson to travel in interstate commerce with the intent that a murder-for-hire be committed. Driggers twice asked Robinson to travel from California to Idaho to meet with him. Robinson testified that at the first meeting, in April 2006, he agreed to kill Driggers’s ex-wife for…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- United States v. FeolaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- United States v. John Javilo McCullahCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1996
- United States v. Alfredo Gracidas-UlibarryCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- United States v. Terrill DixonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. John TerrellCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2012
- United States v. Daniel DvorkinCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
- United States v. Datqunn SawyerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2013
- United States v. Terry ChristensenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- United States v. Omar Argueta-RosalesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.