Legal Opinion

United States v. George Dadanian and Jean Dadanian

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 9, 1988No. 85-5095, 85-5248PublishedCited by 58 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

The petition for rehearing is granted.

We have reexamined our opinion, 818 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir.1987), in light of the subsequent case of McNally v. United States, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987). We conclude that McNally was violated and that the failure to instruct the jury on the “property” element was not harmless error. See Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3107-09, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986); Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 107 S.Ct. 1918, 1921-22, 95 L.Ed.2d 439 (1987). We also conclude that the Dadanians’ scheme to obtain the gambling license…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Rose v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. McNally v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Carpenter v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Pope v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. United States v. George Dadanian and Jean DadanianCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987

3Cited by58 opinions

  1. United States v. FregaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  2. United States v. Millard BowieCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
  3. United States v. LarsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
  4. United States v. Walker Bennett MonroeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
  5. United States v. Maxwell Rangel Joelson, AKA El SanteroCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993

53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API