Junior H. De La Cruz-Feliciano v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding no due process violation where plaintiff failed to show how uncalled witnesses “would have affected the outcome”
• rejecting the contention that “under Wolff oral testimony is not required as long as written statements are obtained”
• rejecting the contention that \under Wolff oral testimony is not required as long as written statements are obtained\
• rejecting the contention that \under Wolff oral testimony is not required as long as written statements are obtained\
• rejecting the contention that \under Wolff oral testimony is not required as long as written statements are obtained\
• \[D]ue process typically requires a case-by-case evaluation of whether live testimony can be provided without threatening institutional goals.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).