UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elton Lee FUNCHES, Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that § 922 “is a strict-liability offense which ordinarily ren- ders the defendant’s state of mind irrelevant”
• affirming a conviction even though some contextual evidence was excluded because “[h]ad the jury heard [the excluded evidence], the jury nonetheless would have lacked a reason in law not to convict”
• “[T]he jury enjoys no right to nullify criminal laws, and the defendant enjoys a right to neither a nullification instruction nor a nullification argument to the jury . . . .”
• “[T]he potential for nullification is no basis for admitting otherwise irrelevant evidence.”
• “[T]he potential for nullification is no basis for admitting otherwise irrelevant evidence.”
• “Because the jury enjoys no right to nullify criminal laws, and the defendant enjoys a right to neither a nullification instruction nor a nullification argument to the jury, the potential for nullification is no basis for admitting otherwise irrelevant evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).