It is simply not the case that "lie + wire = wire fraud". Salmon's summary is obviously not spot-on.
You still don't seem to be following my point regarding jury instructions. My argument isn't that they protect defendants because juries receive them; it's simply that they offer a concise summary of the predicates for felony crimes. A jury's receipt of any given instruction is immaterial.
My corresponding jury instruction omitted that a loss had to be caused, or explained, really explained, what "materially" actually meant, or how important it was.
If you decided to tell a little fib at the corner store and told the cashier you were Barack Obama as you bought a gallon of milk, that would count as wire fraud according to these jury instructions. Not comprehensive -> Not concise.
The example you just provided reinforces rather than rebuts my argument; it says that model jury instructions don't go far enough in explaining how high the bar is to connect a "lie" with fraud in a wire fraud charge. That you think this cite weakens my argument reinforces my belief that we're simply talking past each other.
My original comment wasn't about jury instructions. It was about the fact that wire fraud isn't simply "a lie plus a wire".
The argument I rebutted was that Salmon's quote (lie + wire = conviction) was incorrect.
If you get the jury to vote "guilty", then you have proven guilt, even if you have done so using zero logic or critical thinking skills, or provided them with falsehoods and misinformation. That's Salmon's point, and it's true.
In theory, and according to the law, wire fraud is not simply a lie plus a wire. In practice, that's exactly what wire fraud is. There shouldn't be a gulf between the two, but thanks to our lawmakers, judges, and US attorneys, there is.
Even that isn't true, as you should know, having taken a felony conviction to an appeals court. But it also has nothing to do with my argument. Since we're now several round trips into talking past each other, I'm going to abandon the thread here.
You still don't seem to be following my point regarding jury instructions. My argument isn't that they protect defendants because juries receive them; it's simply that they offer a concise summary of the predicates for felony crimes. A jury's receipt of any given instruction is immaterial.