Michael Santo Polizzi v. United States of America, Emprise Corporation 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.

• concluding that a defendant’s presence was not required during the judge’s questioning of the jurors after the verdict
• good faith ignorance of legal grounds for objection does not excuse a failure to comply with Rule 12(b)(2) (12(f))
• good faith ignorance of legal grounds for objection does not excuse a failure to comply with Rule 12(b)(2) [12(f)]
• Defendant’s and defendant’s counsel’s absence during trial court’s post verdict interrogation of jury with respect to the issue of prejudicial pretrial publicity did not deprive defendant of due process or his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him
• post-verdict interrogation of juror “in camera”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).