United States v. Alexander Danzey and Warren Gore

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that testimony that “[the codefendant] had named the nine men although none of the names were mentioned” violated the Confrontation Clause because “[e]ven on the agent’s testimony that names were named, the jury could readily infer that [the defendant] was among them”
• considering the admission of evidence of prior bank robberies to establish identity
• “[T]he testimony of a single, uncorroborated eyewitness is generally sufficient to support a conviction.”
• substituting “blank” for codefendant’s name ineffective in eliminating prejudice
• substituting \blank\ for codefendant's name ineffective in eliminating prejudice
• jury aware that names redacted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).