Gartrell Construction Inc. v. Aubry

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that direct and circumstantial evidence were sufficient to show that defendant used a telephone, or instructed another to use a telephone, to facilitate a drug deal
• concluding that direct and circumstantial evidence were sufficient to show that defendant used a telephone, or instructed another to use a telephone, to facilitate a drug deal
• noting that the testifying agent “was indicted on charges of conspiring to steal confiscated drug money from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, signing a false tax return, and illegally structuring a currency transaction”
• assuming some impeachment evidence may make a witness’s testimony so incredible that it renders the testimony worthless, then asking whether there was any other evidence to support the elements of the charged offense
• “[N]ewly-discovered impeachment evidence” that a testifying agent was “involved in a conspiracy to steal confiscated drug money from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department” was “so powerful that a jury would find his testimony totally incredible.”
• “There was sufficient evidence to convict Davis, without Duran’s testimony.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).