Tenth Circuit· 12/8/2014

United States v. Brinson

Citations

772 F.3d 1314
96 Fed. R. Serv. 148
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23044
2014 WL 6872171

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 district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Detective Stigerts to testify as an expert regarding the prostitution trade\
holding that, despite evidence that other individuals had access to the Facebook account and had posted messages to it, the trial court could reasonably find that the defendant authored the messages in question
noting the minor’s high school registration form was found in the defendant’s vehicle and it indicated she was fourteen years old
certificate authenticating debit card records which did not “contain any ‘analysis’ that would constitute out-of-court testimony” was simply a nontestimonial statement of authenticity
“Proponents of the evidence need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that the opposing party had made the statement.”
in prosecution for sex trafficking children under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, court did not abuse discretion in concluding detective’s expert testimony on prostitution trade helped jury and was reliable as it did not require a review of defendant’s case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Holmes, Bacharach, McHugh

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Brinson

7 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.