United States v. Charles Woods

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that waiver of an argument precludes review, while mere forfeiture of an argument permits plain error review
• holding that “narrative statements . . . clearly addressed to the FBI agents listening in via the microphone” were not present sense impressions because “[t]hese statement were made for the benefit of the agents—i.e., were calculated and provided for a reason”
• explaining that waiver of an argument precludes review, while mere forfei‐ ture of an argument permits plain error review
• explaining that waiver of an argument precludes review, while mere forfei‐ ture of an argument permits plain error review
• explaining that waiver of an argument precludes review, while mere forfei‐ ture of an argument permits plain error review
• “The recordings of [the Defendant’s] phone conversations were not hearsay and were properly admitted as statements by a party-opponent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).