United States v. Candy Jenkins

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that prior-acts evidence was unduly prejudicial where “the evidence proffered against [the defendant] by the Government was weak,” and “the only real evidence offered by the Government in order to establish her knowledge [of cocaine receipt] came from the contested Rule 404(b
• concluding that prior-acts evidence was unduly prejudicial where “the evidence proffered against [the defendant] by the Government was weak,” and “the only real evidence offered by the Government in order to establish her knowledge [of cocaine receipt] came from the contested Rule 404(b
• \Jenkins' admission that she is a crack cocaine user does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that she was involved in the distribution of crack cocaine.\
• “Jenkins’ admission that she is a crack cocaine user does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that she was involved in the distribution of crack cocaine.”
• “Jenkins’ admission that she is a crack cocaine user does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that she was involved in the distribution of crack cocaine.”
• “[T]here is no doubt that the bad act occurred; [the defendant] freely admitted [it].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).