United States v. Daniel E. Danford

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that jurors are pre- sumed to be capable of disregarding improper evidence presented to them unless the evidence is so incriminating that they could not be expected to put it out of their minds
• noting that jurors are presumed to Nos. 07-1336 and 07-1411 17 be capable of disregarding improper evidence presented to them unless the evidence is so incriminating that they could not be expected to put it out of their minds
• upholding district court’s denial of mistrial after a letter containing prejudicial information was inadvertently published to the jury for “a relatively short period of time (about one minute)”
• statement made “less than 60 seconds” after witnessing robbery qualified as present-sense impression
• statement made “less than 60 seconds” after witnessing robbery qualified as present-sense impression
• “[J]urors are presumed to follow limiting and curative instructions unless the matter improperly before them is so powerfully incriminating that they cannot reasonably be expected to put it out of their minds.” (quoting United States v. Smith, 308 F.3d 726, 739 (7th Cir. 2002

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).