United States v. Bernard McKeon

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that when admitting a prior inconsistent opening statement under Rule 801(d)(2), the inconsistency “should be clear and of a quality which obviates any need for the trier of fact to explore other events”
• discussing considerations of diversion from issues, marginality, prejudicial inference, chilling effect on vigorous advocacy, exposure of work product, trial tactics or legal theory, etc.
• discussing considerations of diversion from issues, marginality, prejudicial inference, chilling effect on vigorous advocacy, exposure of work product, trial tactics or legal theory, etc.
• noting that before permitting evidentiary use of an attorney’s statements in a prior jury argument as admissions of a party opponent, “the district court must be satisfied that the prior argument involves an assertion of fact inconsistent with similar assertions in a subsequent trial”
• requiring disqualification where attorney essentially would be acting as both an advocate and a witness
• noting the relationship to admissions of 18 a party-opponent in civil proceedings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).