United States v. Carl Farnsworth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defendant’s voluntary choice to restrict cross-examination of two parole officers did not present a Sixth Amendment violation
• admitting parole officers’ testimony identifying the defendant because he “had grown a full beard since the time of the robbery”
• endorsing the trial judge’s “directing] the government not to delve into the circumstances of the parole officers’ relationships with the defendant”
• finding no Confrontation Clause violation when the defendant’s counsel made a strategic decision not to cross-examine parole officers about an identification because of the danger of revealing prior convictions
• admitting parole officers’ testimony identifying a bank robber who had grown a post-robbery beard
• rejecting holding of Calhoun because court ‘‘disagree[d] that the constraints on cross-examination in this situation are so extreme that the admission of a parole officer’s identification is per se an abuse of discretion’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).