United States v. Avants

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) exception, equivalent to La. Code Evid. Ann. art. 804(B)(1), was a firmly rooted hearsay exception
• holding that the Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) exception, equivalent to La. Code Evid. Ann. art. 804(B)(1), was a firmly rooted hearsay exception
• finding that, in a case where the appellant’s “motive was to discredit a witness . . . whose testimony could, if believed, convict him,” a change in trial strategy did not create dissimilarity in motive
• noting, when defining acceptable factual bases experts to rely on, that “Rule 703 . . . does not require a ‘personal examination’ of the ‘person or object of the expert’s testimony’”
• “In order for a prior inconsistent statement to be admissible for impeachment purposes, there must be a preliminary finding that statements are inconsistent.”
• “Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; however, in the absence of a proper objection, we review only for plain error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).