In re Bloss

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where the Government’s evidence was overwhelming there was no fair risk of prejudice to the appellant
• stating that a statement offered “as evidence of the fact of the statement rather than as evidence of its content” would not be subject to a hearsay objection
• “[T]he prior statement typically must have been made before the point at which the story was fabricated or the improper influence or motive arose.”
• “to be logically relevant to rebut such a charge, the prior statement typically must have been made before the point at which the story was fabricated or the improper influence or motive arose”
• “[T]o be logically relevant to rebut such a charge [of improper influence or motive], the prior statement typically must have been made before the point at which the story was fabricated or the improper influence or motive arose.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).