United States v. Carl M. Drury, Jr., M.D., Doctor

How courts have described this case

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

• Rule 608(a) not implicated by testimony highlighting inconsistencies in witness's testimony because that testimony did not constitute an attack on witness's “reputation for truthfulness“
• “Moreover, and perhaps more significant, prior consistent statements are treated as admissible non-hearsay only if they are offered to rebut a specific allegation of recent fabrication, not to rehabilitate credibility that has been generally called into question.”
• “An ‘attack’ that consists only of ‘[g]overnment counsel pointing out inconsist- encies in testimony and arguing that the accused’s testimony is not credible does not constitute an attack on the accused’s reputation for truthfulness within the meaning of Rule 608.’”
• “Evidentiary 23 Case: 10-13161 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 24 of 41 errors do not constitute grounds for reversal unless there is a reasonable likelihood that they affected the defendant’s substantial rights . . . .” (internal quotation mark omitted)
• citation and internal quotation marks omitted; see also Bar- ton, 909 F.3d at 1331. The prosecutors’ error was harmless. Fey and Gunter had notice of Reed’s expected testimony well before trial even though the prosecutors failed to identify it as governed by Rule 404(b
• citation and internal quotation marks omitted; see also Bar- ton, 909 F.3d at 1331. The prosecutors’ error was harmless. Fey and Gunter had notice of Reed’s expected testimony well before trial even though the prosecutors failed to identify it as governed by Rule 404(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).