The following excerpt is from United States v. Prado, Docket No. 13-2894-cr (L), Docket No. 13-3877-cr (Con), Docket No. 14-115-cr (Con), Docket No. 14-143-cr (Con) (2nd Cir. 2016):
Cir. 2015) (holding the jury instructions erroneous because they permitted the jury to convict the defendant of violating Section 924(c) "merely because he 'intend[ed] to help commit or to encourage' the predicate offensethe bank robberywithout ever finding that he had the requisite intent and advance knowledge related to his compatriot's firearm possession"); see also United States v. Richardson, 793 F.3d 612, 631 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding jury instructions erroneous where, under a natural reading, they required the jury to find only that the defendant intended to help commit the predicate robbery crime because they "insufficiently explain[ed] the knowledge requirement necessary to convict [the defendant] of aiding and abetting a 924(c) violation").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.