United States v. Charles W. Lewis

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he testimony was admitted to show that appellant had a scheme which included the offenses for which he was on trial.”
• testimony concerning stolen money orders not charged in indictment admissible to show that defendant was “the mastermind of a common scheme”
• no obligation on part of trial judge to give limiting instruction as to uncharged acts used to prove a scheme where no request was made
• “{W]hen a party seeks to impeach a witness by prior inconsistent statements, it is plain error not to give an immediate limiting instruction if the jury could give substantive effect to the impeachment evidence.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).