United States of America, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Leo v. Felton Erica Chase, Appellants/cross-Appellees

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the introduction of a coconspirator statement did not abridge the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights because the statement fell within a firmly rooted hearsay exception and was nontestimonial
• holding that the introduction of a coconspirator statement did not abridge the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights because the statement fell within a firmly rooted hearsay exception and was nontestimonial
• explaining that appellate claims other than sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges may require a balanced factual treatment
• finding that the government’s use of the term “terrorist” to describe the defendants and their actions was “highly pejorative,” but that this was “a function of the acts that the defendants engaged in, not the government’s inaccurate description of those acts”
• type of weapon and legality of possession

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).