United States v. Barry Keeter, Darres Park, and Paul D. Ahrens

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant waived an objection by rejecting the court’s offer to postpone a sentencing hearing and opting instead to proceed without delay
• explaining that confrontation clause does not distinguish between genuine and feigned memory loss and that confrontation clause is satisfied when witness ‘‘look[s] the accused in the eye in court’’
• finding the Confrontation Clause satisfied “when the witness must look the accused in the eye in court [and] shortcomings in the declarant’s memory may be made known to the jury”
• finding the Confrontation Clause satisfied “when the witness must look the accused in the eye in court [and] shortcomings in the declarant’s memory may be made known to the jury”
• finding the Confrontation Clause satisfied “when the witness must look the accused in the eye in court [and] shortcomings in the declarant’s memory may be made known to the jury”
• finding the Confrontation Clause satisfied “when the witness must look the accused in the eye in court [and] shortcomings in the declarant’s memory may be made known to the jury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).