Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

US v. Hickey, No. 05-10004

By FindLaw Staff on September 02, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Defendant's mail fraud and securities fraud conviction and sentence are affirmed where: 1) any claimed error by the district court in proceeding with limited pretrial matters before the Court of Appeals issued a previous mandate was harmless; 2) because the magistrate judge considered the statutory factors under the Speedy Trial Act in granting an "ends of justice" exclusion, allowing the magistrate to clarify those findings was not in error; 3) so long as the original indictment remains pending, a superseding indictment that omits a charge contained in the first indictment does not stop the tolling of the statute of limitations as to that charge; 4) even if defendant genuinely believed his investment scheme would be profitable and would result in gains for his investors, he would still be guilty of securities fraud and mail fraud if he knowingly lied to investors about the risks associated with his plan; 5) nothing in the jury instructions to which defendant objected negated the mens rea instruction; and 6) the Sixth Amendment did not require that the loss be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Read US v. Hickey, No. 05-10004

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2009

Filed September 2, 2009


Opinion by Judge McKeown

Concurrence by Judge Reinhardt


For Appellant:

Ezekiel E. Cortez, San Diego, CA

For Appellee:

Vijay Shanker, United States Department of Justice Criminal Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard