Legal Opinion
United States v. Charles Cornelius James
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 8, 1993No. 92-10043PublishedCited by 56 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RYMER, Circuit Judge:
The government neglected to introduce evidence that banks it accused Charles Cornelius James of robbing were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Even though proof of FDIC insurance is an element of the federal crime of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), James was convicted. He appeals on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence.1 We have to decide whether a stipulation about “the FDIC aspect of the case,” made outside the presence of the jury, and the assertion by James’s counsel in opening statement and closing argument that the only issue was…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States v. Leo BishopCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- United States v. George Michael GwaltneyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Religious Technology Center v. WollersheimSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- United States v. MeadeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
- United States v. AtchesonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- United States of America, Cross-Appellee v. Alvin BarkerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- United States v. Roby Taylor Chapel, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- United States v. AyoubCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.