State v. McManes

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defendant need not take the stand to be able to show the jury the tattoos on his hands which were an openly visible physical characteristic
• holding that the district court erred in concluding that a defendant was required to take the stand to display his tattoos because the Government may compel a defendant to display such physical char- acteristics
• remand required to allow the defendant an opportunity to lay a foundation for displaying to the jury the tattoos on his hands because the foundation issue was never reached at trial
• “[I]f, when evidence is offered, there is no objection based on lack of a foundation, and the evidence is received, the point is not available on appeal.” (citing United States v. Valdivia, 492 F.2d 199, 208 (9th Cir. 1973))
• “If [the 9 display of a defendant’s tattoo] can be compelled by the government when it is to the government’s advantage, surely the defendant can make the same showing without taking the stand, when such a showing is to his advantage.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).