Skip to main content
Second Circuit· 11/29/2012

United States v. Coplan

Citations

  • 703 F.3d 46
  • 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6832
  • 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24613
  • 2012 WL 5954654

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that evidence proffered pursuant to Rule 106 is not properly excluded because it is hearsay but must be assessed under \the Rule 106 standard\
  • noting that issue of how to apply two tests is not settled in the circuit
  • applying Hammerschmidt and its progeny despite noting “infirmities in the history and deployment of [§ 371]”
  • explaining that even if a district court’s Nos. 23-1014/1029 United States v. Fox, et al. Page 40 evidentiary ruling was erroneous, it was harmless because “it is clear that the defendants had ample opportunity to make these arguments through their cross-examination”
  • affirming district court’s decision to admit selective portions of deposition transcripts but refusing to admit them in their entirety
  • reversing a § 371 conviction predi- cated on false statements where “[t]he Government [did] not contend that [the defendant] even knew about the … deposi- tions before they occurred, much less discussed [the cocon- spirators’] testimony”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kearse, McLaughlin, Cabranes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

87 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

111 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Coplan

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.