United States v. Carlos Mendiola

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the Seventh Circuit had previously held that “hearing a defendant’s voice once during a court proceeding satisfies the minimal familiarity requirement”
• requiring that testimony must meet the requirements of both Rule 901 and Rule 701
• “[I]n cases in which the recording is in a language foreign to the jury, transcripts (along with the proper admonishments about their use) are a ‘virtual necessity.’”
• “the knowledge required by Rule 602 is not absolute or unlimited knowledge but simply that awareness of objects or events that begins with sensory perception of them, a comprehension of them, and an ability to testify at trial about them.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).