United States v. Andrea Lewis

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that objection was not preserved under Rule 103(a)
• ruling that plain error review applied when defendant argued before the district court that FRE 413 evidence should not be admitted because it was intrastate and not interstate but on appeal, defendant argued the same evidence should not have been admitted for a different reason
• ruling that plain error review applied when defendant argued before the district court that FRE 413 evidence should not be admitted because it was intrastate and not interstate but on appeal, defendant argued the same evidence should not have been admitted for a different reason
• explaining that “[t]o preserve error, an evidentiary objection must ‘state[] the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context,’” and that “a trial court judge must be fully apprised of the grounds of an objection” (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1)(B
• explaining “[t]o preserve error, an evidentiary objection must ‘state[] the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context’”
• “To preserve error, an evidentiary objection must ‘state[ ] the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).