Pennsylvania v. Powell

How courts have described this case

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

• requiring that plaintiffs show that defendant had knowledge of both infringing use and that product had no substantial non-infringing use
• incriminating nature of photograph of car arguably relevant in investigation involving stolen cars but not in investigation for drugs
• incriminating nature of photograph of car arguably relevant in investigation involving stolen cars but not in investigation for drugs
• “The Government is not obligated by Rule 16(a) to anticipate every possible defense, assume what the defendant’s trial testimony ... will be, and then furnish him with otherwise irrelevant material that might conflict with his testimony.”
• non-unanimity aspect of party-to-a-crime instruction does not violate state or federal law
• “The Government is not obligated by Rule 16(a) to anticipate every possible defense, assume what the defendant’s trial testimony (if he decides to testify) will be, and then furnish him with otherwise irrelevant material that might conflict with his testimony.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).