United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. James Scott Mann William M. Moore, Defendants-Appellants-Cross

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that acts of concealment are sometimes a necessary part of the overall conspiracy
• finding no direct incrimination where codefendant’s statement was exculpatory and became potentially inculpatory only when contrasted with defendant’s own out-of-court statements
• holding where defendants present antagonistic defenses, instructions to consider the evidence as to each defendant separately and individually, and not to consider comments made by counsel as substantive evidence, cure any prejudice' caused when co-defendants accuse each other of the crime
• finding no direct incrimination where codefendant’s statement was exculpatory and became potentially inculpatory only when contrasted with defendant’s own out-of-court statements
• interpreting Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) — not Supreme Court Rule 212
• distinguishing motions for severance of offenses and defendants for purposes of preservation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).