United States v. Alberto Calderon

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that any unfair prejudice was mitigated by a limiting instruction that the jury could consider the evidence only to prove the defendant’s state of mind
• holding that right to counsel is violated only when there decisions concerning the objectives of his representation and the means by which they would be pursued;” (3
• holding that there was an underlying scheme to import and distribute cocaine because the “importation was accomplished over a relatively short amount of time, aboard the same vessel, in the same manner, and from the same supplier”
• holding that, even if we were to conclude that there was a material variance, it would be “incumbent” on the defendant to demonstrate that the variance substantially prejudiced him
• concluding that closing argument in which a prosecutor accused defense counsel of misstating evidence, making a fictitious closing argument, and impugning the integrity of government witnesses did not rise to the level of prose-cutorial misconduct
• explaining that, if an appellant cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the district court’s erroneous ruling regarding counsel, the error was harmless

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).