United States v. Blauvelt

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 Remmer presumption did not apply where the communication was innocuous and the defendant “ha[d] failed to present evidence that the communication was prejudicial”
• holding that the Remmer presumption did not apply where the communication was innocuous and the defendant “ha[d] failed to present evidence that the communication was prejudicial”
• explaining that we “have rejected [the contention advanced by Griffin and Smith] and others like it on more than one occasion”
• applying harmless error analysis to incriminating statement made by defendant following his detention, which was assumed to be unlawful
• upholding admission under Rule 404(b) of adult pornographic videotapes in order to prove identity, motive, and intent in child pornography case
• upholding admission under Rule 404(b) of adult pornographic videotapes in order to prove identity, motive, and intent in child pornography case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).