United States v. Carlos Manuel Parodi, United States of America v. Edwin Barton Conway, United States of America v. Robert Lee Laws

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that upon review of the entire trial, two challenged comments made by the court did not support an inference that the court was unfairly biased against the defendant
• holding that a litigant fails to properly preserve an objection for appellate review when he objects under the correct evidentiary rule, but on a ground different than that asserted on appeal
• holding that a litigant fails to properly preserve an objection for appellate review when he objects under the correct evidentiary rule, but on a ground different than that asserted on appeal
• noting that Rule 103(a) requires a timely and specific objection to preserve appellate review
• explaining that the trial judge \`should not hesitate to ask questions for the purpose of developing the facts; and it is no ground of complaint that the facts so developed may hurt or help one side or the other.'\
• explaining that the trial judge \ 'should not hesitate to ask questions for the purpose of developing the facts; and it is no ground of complaint that the facts so developed may hurt or help one side or the other.' \

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).