United States v. Danny M. Rigsby

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a juror’s alleged contact with extraneous information requires a hearing when there is “an obvious potential for improperly influencing the jury”
• stating that prejudice is presumed whenever a juror has an unauthorized, outside communication ―that presents a likelihood of affecting the verdict‖
• stating that “we require a Remmer hearing in all cases involving an unauthorized communication with a juror or the jury from an outside source that presents a likelihood of affecting the verdict”
• stating that “we require a Remmer hearing in all cases involving an unauthorized communication with a juror or the jury from an outside source that presents a likelihood of affecting the verdict”
• “When there is a credible allegation of extraneous influences, the court must investigate sufficiently to assure itself that constitutional rights of the criminal defendant have not been violated.”
• “When there is a credible allegation of extraneous influences, the court must investigate sufficiently to assure itself that constitutional rights of the criminal defendant have not been violated.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).