United States v. Daniel Bifield

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defendant’s right to testify on his own behalf 19 “does not entitle him to place before the jury evidence normally inadmissible”
• affirming conviction but conceding that the instruction presented a close question and advising district courts that it was better practice not to use the instruction
• precluding duress defense altogether after hearing held outside the presence of the jury during trial
• upholding trial court’s ruling that the defense of duress or necessity failed as a matter of law and could not be presented to the jury
• order granting the Government’s Motion in Limine as to any evidence in support of defendant’s proposed duress defense
• “A criminal defendant’s right to present a full defense and to receive a fair trial does not entitle him to place before the jury evidence normally inadmissible.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).