(DOWNLOAD) "United States v. Stoneman" by United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: United States v. Stoneman
- Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- Release Date : January 13, 1989
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
Appellant Alan R. Stoneman appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvanias order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Stoneman seeks to vacate his conviction for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C.A. ร§ 371 (West 1966) to violate the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C.A. ร§ 1341 (West 1984) and to utilize a facility of interstate commerce in violation of the Interstate Travel in Aid of Racketeering Act (Travel Act), 18 U.S.C.A. ร§ 1952 (West 1984), based on the United States Supreme Courts recent decision in McNally v. United States,483 U.S. 350, 107 S. Ct. 2875, 97 L. Ed. 2d 292 (1987). I conclude in Part V that the district courts charge on mail fraud only required the jury to find a loss of intangible rights in order to convict, and therefore, in light of McNally, was error. However, a majority of the panel believes that, under the evidence, just as in the companion case of United States v. Asher, 854 F.2d 1483 (3d Cir. 1988), the loss of money was implicit in the intangible rights scheme. More specifically, the majority is unable to hypothesize a set of circumstances under which the jury could have found Stoneman guilty of depriving the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of their right to honest government (an impermissible intangible right under McNally) without also having found that Stoneman was involved in a scheme the sole purpose of which was to insure that a company known as CTA obtained a no-bid FICA recovery contract at a substantially greater cost to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania than a contract obtained through traditional competitive bidding. The majority believes that the indictment, evidence and jury charge in this case are essentially the same as Asher, and that on the authority of Asher the conviction must be affirmed.