United States v. Charles Ivy

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that unflattering characterizations of the defendant do not require a new trial when such descriptions are supported by the evidence
• determining that invocation was limited to questions about where defendant obtained materials to make a bomb
• finding unambiguous, limited invocation where the defendant stated he would not answer questions on a particular subject without first talking to his lawyer and police continued questioning on other subjects
• “Section 844(h)(2)... does not include the relation element Ivy urges .... We . .. refuse to judicially append the relation element to § 844(h)(2)”
• \Section 844(h)(2) ... does not include the relation element Ivy urges .... We ... refuse to judicially append the relation element to § 844(h)(2)\
• following Rosenberg in an alternative holding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).