United States v. Basham

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence of other acts during a sixteen-day crime spree was more probative than prejudicial
• concluding that defendant “had sufficient notice of . . . bad acts evidence” when counsel “objected to admission of the [evidence] before the Government even reached that line of questioning”
• noting that an error that affects “the outcome of the penalty phase” is an error affecting a substantial right
• instructing that neither the Constitution nor laws of the United States \require a capital jury to give mitigating effect or weight to any partic- ular evidence\ (citation omitted)
• noting that “the ultimate factual determination regarding the impartiality of the jury necessarily depends on legal conclusions” (quoting United States v. Cheek, 94 F.3d 136, 140 (4th Cir. 1996))
• noting that “those who do not have the means to hire their own lawyers have no cognizable complaint so long as they are adequately represented by attorneys appointed by the courts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).