United States v. Antonio M. Smart

How courts have described this case

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

• requiring that district courts sometimes use jury in- structions to prevent expert testimony from violating Rule 704(b)
• explaining that substantial prejudice is “not a mere suffieiency-of-the-evidence inquiry”
• explaining that substantial prejudice is “not a mere sufficiency-of-the-evidence inquiry”
• “[I]f the other evidence presented in this case had been even slightly ambiguous, we would be required to reverse Smart’s conviction.”
• “At all times, the burden of proving that an error was not prejudicial rests on the government.”
• expert testimony on “large amounts of cash in small-denomination bills” proper

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).