United States v. Clarence Haines

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the error of admitting an agent’s impermissible testimony was harmless because the record, even excluding the impermissible testimony, was “replete with evidence” that defendants had participated in the conspiracy
• concluding that defendants’ challenge at their sentencing hearing to their mandatory minimum sentences based on conspiracy-wide heroin amounts, though not raised with an ideal level of specificity, were timely and sufficient to preserve their objections
• proper for agent to opine that “the phrase ‘I’ll be up there’ is a reference to Houston, Texas”
• proper for agent to opine that “the phrase ‘I’ll be up there’ is a reference to Houston, Texas”
• “Because the quantity of heroin involved affects Haines’s and Porter’s minimum sentences under § 841, it must be found by a jury.”
• “In light of this longstanding rule, we have found error where the district court increased a statutory minimum in reliance on a conspiracy-wide quantity of drugs.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).