Lampher v. Zagel

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a defendant preserves his sufficiency objection by making a Rule 29 motion either at the close of all of the evidence or after judgment within the time limits provided in the Rule
• “The purpose of these [narcotics laws] is to halt smugglers before they introduce their dangerous wares into and distribute them in this country.”
• “[I]nternational agreements have yet to recognize drug smuggling . . . as a heinous crime subject to universal jurisdiction.”
• “[I]nternational agreements have yet to recognize drug smuggling . . . as a heinous crime subject to universal jurisdiction.”
• a trial court has no obligation to continue a read-back after jurors have expressly indicated that they have heard enough
• reviewed sufficiency of the evidence for plain error as it pertained to certain defendants even though those defendants did not preserve the issue below and did not raise it on appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).