United States v. Adrian Mastrangelo, Jr. Adrian Mastrangelo

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the “District Court ... [should] provide a clear explanation regarding the balance between the evidence’s prejudicial and probative effects ...”
• involving repeated misstatement and mis-characterization of stipulation relating to key element of offense, where Court’s curative instruction also misstated the stipulation
• stating that, to introduce prior crime evidence, the proponent “must ‘clearly articulate how that evidence fits into a chain of logical inferences’ without [alleging the] mere propensity to commit crime now based on the commission of’ a crime in the past (citation omitted)
• “If we conclude that a comment was improper, we must apply a harmless error analysis....”
• “If we conclude that a comment was improper, we must apply a harmless error analysis . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).