United States v. Daniel James Fowlie

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Chambers was based on addressing antiquated rules of evidence that precluded admission of a third party’s confession
• rejecting a due process challenge to evidence excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) because the statement lacked any “significant indicia of reliability” and was “tangential at best”
• discussing, in the procedural history of a case, a petitioner’s attempt to secure the writ in a foreign legal proceeding
• finding 14 an Amparo decision to have no bearing on an individual’s rights under a United States- 15 Mexico extradition treaty
• noting that “[g]iven the length of the potential interruption of the proceedings and the likelihood that the continuance would be for naught, we cannot say that, in light of all the circumstances, the district court abused its discretion in denying” the continuance
• noting, in upholding denial of a continuance, that the evidence sought during the continuance was “entirely tangential to the issues affecting [the defendant’s] guilt or innocence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).