State v. Bradshaw
Court of Appeals of Utah
1DissentThorne, Judge
(dissenting): ©
1] 35 I respectfully dissent. First, although I agree that the racketeering charge presents a close question, I disagree with the majority's conclusion. In short, the State's evidence-when all reasonable inferences are drawn in the State's favor-establishes sufficient probable ecause to support the charge at this stage of the proceeding. Similarly, when the communications fraud charges are analyzed with the proper deference, and in light of the statute's plain language, this court should conclude that the trial court acted properly in denying Bradshaw's motion to quash. ~
I.…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. TurketteSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- McNally v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc., as Successor in Interest to Peach Tree Bancard Corporation, Judy Elliot, James ElliotCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- National Organization for Women, Inc. v. ScheidlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.