United States v. Svoboda
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
347 F.3d 471 (2003)
- Written by Matthew Celestin, JD
Facts
Michael Robles and Richard Svoboda (defendants) were friends who were indicted for conspiracy to commit securities fraud. The scheme for which they were indicted involved Svoboda obtaining confidential insider information by way of his position at a bank and passing that information to Robles. Robles, who was aware of Svoboda’s position at the bank, would then used the insider information to make suspiciously timed securities trades for large profits and share the profits with Svoboda. Svoboda pleaded guilty and testified at Robles’s trial that Robles was fully aware that the information he received from Svoboda had been unlawfully obtained. However, Robles denied such knowledge. At the government’s (plaintiff) request, the district court gave the jury a conscious-avoidance instruction: the jury could find that Robles acted knowingly regarding the unlawful source of the confidential information he received from Svoboda—despite the fact that Robles denied such actual knowledge—if the government proved that Robles consciously chose to avoid acquiring that knowledge. Robles was convicted and subsequently appealed, arguing that conscious avoidance may not be used to prove intent in a two-person conspiracy and therefore that the government had failed to establish Robles’s requisite intent to participate in the conspiracy.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scullin, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 783,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
