State of Tennessee v. Julie Paul

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that impeachment evidence “goes only to the credibility of a witness and does not generally warrant the granting of a new trial” (cleaned up)
• holding that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery similarly qualifies as crime of violence under force clause
• noting that a “district court does not need to expound upon its reasoning in its denial of a new trial motion”
• noting that error affects defendant’s substantial rights if it “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding defendant could not show the “outcome would have been different absent the improper instruction” given the weight of the evidence that he perpetrated the robbery
• explaining that the inquiry into whether the jury relied upon a certain § 924(c) predicate “is a case-specific and fact-intensive determination” that may involve reviewing, inter alia, the jury instructions and the trial evidence (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).