United States of America, Cross-Appellee v. Karen Eccles, Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• post-conviction review remains available where prosecutorial misconduct is alleged that implicates substantial rights protected by the due process clause
• “[A] defendant may not cross-appeal from an interlocutory appeal under [18 U.S.C. §] 3731.”
• “Because we lack jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s appeal, any statements that we could make here as to the appealability after trial of the defendant’s claims would constitute dicta.”
• ‘‘Because we lack jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s appeal, any state- ments that we could make here as to the appealability after trial of the defendant’s claims would constitute dicta.’’
• \[W]e decline to find that Congress intended to create an exception [for jurisdiction over the defendant's cross-appeal] applicable in the unusual circumstance where the district court grants in part and denies in part a defendant's motion to suppress statements.\
• describing compliance with Rule 4(b) as both mandatory and jurisdictional

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).