UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Floyd McLEAN, Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that prior drug dealing was inextricably intertwined where it explained the relationship between the defendant and a witness and was needed to assess the witness’s credibility
• denoting “same transaction” and “necessary to complete the story”' as separate categories from “inextricably intertwined”
• rejecting the “suggestion . . . that we interpret the subsection to require the prior conviction itself to be alleged in an indictment”
• “[T]he purpose of [the rule 404(b)] evidence was not to attack McLean’s character but to corroborate the confidential informants’ testimony about” the charged crime
• “[Defendant] cannot show prejudice in the face of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.”
• “[Defendant] capnot show prejudice in the face of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).