United States v. Andrew Modjewski

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because “all of the information [this Court] knew [in the area of child exploitation] was available to the general public” and were not extrajudicial facts about defendant or his case, there was no need for recusal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).