United States v. Corson

579 F.3d 804 (2009)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Corson

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
579 F.3d 804 (2009)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD


Federal agents concocted a plan to entice gangsters into robbing a fictitious drug stash house. Agents asked a confidential informant (CI) whether he knew anyone who might be interested in robbing a stash house. The CI asked Marcus Corson (defendant) whether he was interested in a business opportunity. Marcus arranged a meeting with Oscar Alvarez (defendant) at Alvarez’s house. Wearing a wire, the CI said he worked security for Loquito, who worked for a Mexican drug cartel. In reality, Loquito was an undercover agent. The CI said cocaine totaling 15–20 kilos would be delivered to the stash house, but Loquito would learn its location only an hour beforehand. Loquito would then call the CI with the location. Marcus asked whether the guards would be carrying firearms. The CI said there would probably be armed guards, and Marcus said he would not hesitate to kill them. Marcus said he and Alvarez were in on the plan along with Marcus’s brother, Aaron, as the three previously had done robberies together. The three met the CI and Loquito the next day. All three repeatedly said they were committed to the robbery. The five arranged a staging location where Loquito would call the CI with the stash-house location. The three men arrived in Marcus’s car. The CI and Loquito were already there, and the CI got in Marcus’s car. Marcus complained that Loquito had parked conspicuously and drove around to see whether he was being followed. Aaron asked whether the CI was armed, and the CI confirmed he had a gun. When Marcus grew frustrated, the CI assured Marcus he was just waiting for Loquito’s call. After Loquito called the CI, the CI got back in Loquito’s car, and the three men drove off and never returned—the sting was over. Police searched the suspects’ residences but found only one baggie of bullets. The prosecution (plaintiff) nonetheless indicted the three men for conspiring to rob a stash house and to sell five or more kilos of cocaine. The jury heard Loquito’s testimony and the conversations the CI recorded. All three men were convicted and appealed on insufficient-evidence grounds, but Aaron later withdrew his appeal.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Tinder, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership