Skip to main content
Third Circuit· 2/23/2010

United States v. Brown

Citations

  • 595 F.3d 498
  • 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 3731
  • 2010 WL 610599

How courts have described this case

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

  • \the [ Securities and Exchange Commission v. ] Chenery [ Corp.
  • concluding that when “the plea negotiations were over [] there was no risk that judicial pressure was going to influence the outcome of those negotiations.”
  • explaining the requirements for a district court to grant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence
  • noting that even assuming the first four factors had been satisfied, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 33 motion because defendant had failed to show that the newly-discovered evidence probably would have resulted in an acquittal
  • “To succeed under this standard of review, a defendant must demonstrate that (1) the asserted violation of Rule 11(c)(1) was error, (2) the error was plain, and (3
  • “To succeed under this standard of review, a defendant must demonstrate that (1) the asserted violation of Rule 11(c)(1) was error, (2) the error was plain, and (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sloviter, Jordan, Greenberg

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

Other cases with this 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.