United States v. Amir Bajoghli

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that while a district court “retains broad-ranging discretion to manage trials and limit proof[,] . . . its discretion must be balanced by the need to give the government adequate latitude to prove its case”
• noting that intrinsic evidence “should be excluded only sparingly” under Rule 403
• finding an abuse of discretion where the district court limited the Government’s evidence such that Government could not offer sufficient proof of certain elements of the crime
• “[E]vidence of financial gain is particularly probative in a fraud case to establish the defendant’s intent to defraud.”
• abuse of discretion to exclude post-scheme conduct showing guilty mind

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).