United States v. Clark, No. 11-2270 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was the leader of a hub-and-spoke conspiracy involving identity theft and bank fraud. Defendant subsequently appealed his conviction for aggravated identity theft based on the sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction for that offense and the district court's admission of certain prior acts evidence. The court affirmed the conviction because the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where a reasonable juror could have concluded that he had knowledge of the improper use of personal information of real people and because the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the prior acts evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake.
Court Description: Criminal Case - conviction. Sufficient evidence was presented to support conviction for aggravated identity theft and district court did not err in denying motion for acquittal on the aggravated identity theft, as a reasonable juror could infer that Clark had knowledge of the improper use of personal information of real people. District court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence under Rule 404(b) of prior identity theft convictions to show knowledge and intent. [ February 09, 2012
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.