United States v. Mohamed
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
600 F.3d 1000 (2010)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The federal government (plaintiff) prosecuted Elias Mohamed (defendant) for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The federal district court trial evidence established that Ernest White sold translations of test questions to applicants for commercial driving licenses (CDLs) who were not fluent in English. Osman Abdullahi supplied the translations. In fact, White and Abdullahi provided the applicants not only with translated questions, but also with translations of the correct answers. In addition, White bribed Orbin May, a CDL-test administrator, to make sure the students passed the test's behind-the-wheel component. White testified that Mohamed, who worked for Abdullahi, knew about White's arrangement with May and helped Abdullahi refer students to White. Other testimony and physical evidence connected Mohamed to overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, the judge instructed the jury that they could convict Mohamed even without proof that Mohamed personally committed such an act, so long as the government proved that Mohamed knowingly joined the conspiracy and that at least one conspirator committed the act. The jury convicted Mohamed. On appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Mohamed argued that the judge's instruction was in error.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lange, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
