United States v. Turner

551 F.3d 657 (2008)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Turner

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
551 F.3d 657 (2008)

  • Written by Sharon Feldman, JD

Facts

Turner (defendant) was the director of the Division of Physical Services for the Illinois secretary of state’s office. Turner supervised three night janitors who devised a scheme to take substantial unauthorized leave and still collect their full salaries. Turner assisted the janitors in avoiding detection by their immediate supervisors by intervening when the supervisors began to closely watch the three janitors. Turner also reprimanded building managers and told them to leave the lead night janitor and his crew alone. The Division of Physical Services, the inspector general, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) initiated investigations following complaints about the unsanitary conditions in the building that the three janitors were assigned to clean. The lead night janitor cooperated with the FBI and recorded conversations with Turner. FBI agents questioned Turner twice, and on both occasions, he denied having deliberately ignored what the janitors were doing and having reprimanded their supervisors for checking on them. Turner claimed to have only recently learned about the scheme. When FBI agents interviewed Turner, they had recorded conversations that contradicted Turner’s interview responses. Turner was charged with wire fraud and making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Turner was convicted, and argued on appeal that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove that his false statements were material because the FBI agents already knew the answers to the questions they asked him.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sykes, 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 736,000 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 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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 736,000 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
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 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