U.S. v. Jones

36 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Debrew

    No. CR 09-2054 MCA (D.N.M. Apr. 26, 2011)

    Such a finding is infirm because it is not based on the evidence.'" United States v. Jones, 49 F.3d 628, 632 (10th Cir. 1995) ( "Jones II") (quoting Sunward Corp. v. Dun Bradstreet, Inc., 811 F.2d 511, 521 (10th Cir. 1987)). While it is not always easy to distinguish between a reasonable inference and mere speculation, the Tenth Circuit approaches the issue by recognizing that

  2. U.S. v. Wilson

    913 F. Supp. 1446 (D. Kan. 1995)   Cited 3 times

    Such a finding is infirm because it is not based on the evidence.'" United States v. Jones, 49 F.3d 628, 633 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Sunward Corp. v. Dun Bradstreet, Inc., 811 F.2d 511, 521 (10th Cir. 1987) (quoting Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 1982))). The line between a reasonable inference that may permissibly be drawn by a jury from basic facts in evidence and an impermissible speculation is not drawn by judicial idiosyncrasies.

  3. U.S. v. Robinson

    Case No. 04-40041-01-SAC (D. Kan. Aug. 17, 2004)   Cited 3 times

    Such a finding is infirm because it is not based on the evidence.'" United States v. Jones, 49 F.3d 628, 632 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Sunward Corp. v. Dun Bradstreet, Inc., 811 F.2d 511, 521 (10th Cir. 1987) (quoting Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 1982))). "An inference is reasonable only if the conclusion flows from logical and probabilistic reasoning."

  4. U.S. v. Cooper

    No. 02-40069-01/02/03-SAC (D. Kan. Feb. 10, 2004)   Cited 3 times

    Such a finding is infirm because it is not based on the evidence.'" United States v. Jones, 49 F.3d 628, 632 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Sunward Corp. v. Dun Bradstreet, Inc., 811 F.2d 511, 521 (10th Cir. 1987) (quoting Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 1982))). "An inference is reasonable only if the conclusion flows from logical and probabilistic reasoning."

  5. U.S. v. Pahulu

    Case No. 2:02CR-688JTG (D. Utah Aug. 4, 2003)

    If there is . . . logical probability that an ultimate fact will follow from a stated narrative or historical fact, then the jury is given the opportunity to draw a conclusion because there is a reasonable probability that the conclusion flows from the proven facts.United States v. Jones, 49 F.3d 628, 632 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Tose v. Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 648 F.2d 879, 895 (3d Cir. 1981)). While inferences drawn from facts in evidence are appropriate, inferences drawn from other inferences are not. Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Inference upon Inference Rule" as follows: "The principle that a presumption based on another presumption cannot serve as a basis for determining an ultimate fact."

  6. U.S. v. Carter

    No. 02-40090-01-SAC (D. Kan. Jul. 17, 2003)

    Such a finding is infirm because it is not based on the evidence.'" United States v. Jones, 49 F.3d 628, 633 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Sunward Corp. v. Dun Bradstreet, Inc., 811 F.2d 511, 521 (10th Cir. 1987) (quoting Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 1982))). "An inference is reasonable only if the conclusion flows from logical and probabilistic reasoning.

  7. U.S. v. Cline

    No. 00-40024-03-SAC (D. Kan. Jul. 9, 2002)

    Such a finding is infirm because it is not based on the evidence.'" United States v. Jones, 49 F.3d 628, 633 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Sunward Corp. v. Dun Bradstreet, Inc., 811 F.2d 511, 521 (10th Cir. 1987) (quoting Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 1982))). "An inference is reasonable only if the conclusion flows from logical and probabilistic reasoning.

  8. U.S. v. Walters

    89 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Kan. 2000)   Cited 64 times

    Such a finding is infirm because it is not based on the evidence.'" United States v. Jones, 49 F.3d 628, 633 (10th Cir. 1995) ( quoting Sunward Corp. v. Dun Bradstreet, Inc., 811 F.2d 511, 521 (10th Cir. 1987) ( quoting Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 1982))). "An inference is reasonable only if the conclusion flows from logical and probabilistic reasoning.

  9. U.S. v. Ruedlinger

    976 F. Supp. 976 (D. Kan. 1997)   Cited 18 times
    In Ruedlinger, for example, the defendant sought " any and all audit reports prepared by the Internal Revenue Service pertaining to DRI (Doug Ruedlinger, Inc.) and/or Wheatland Group Holdings, Inc. [the defendant's companies] during the 1990's time period."

    Such a finding is infirm because it is not based on the evidence.'" United States v. Jones, 49 F.3d 628, 633 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting Sunward Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 811 F.2d 511, 521 (10th Cir.1987) (quoting Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir.1982))). The line between a reasonable inference that may permissibly be drawn by a jury from basic facts in evidence and an impermissible speculation is not drawn by judicial idiosyncrasies.

  10. U.S. v. Burch

    958 F. Supp. 531 (D. Kan. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    Such a finding is infirm because it is not based on the evidence.'" United States v. Jones, 49 F.3d 628, 633 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Sunward Corp. v. Dun Bradstreet, Inc., 811 F.2d 511, 521 (10th Cir. 1987) (quoting Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 1982))). The line between a reasonable inference that may permissibly be drawn by a jury from basic facts in evidence and an impermissible speculation is not drawn by judicial idiosyncrasies.