United States v. David Frank Duncan, A/K/A Harold Celline

How courts have described this case

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

• we will closely examine those cases in which government misconduct injures third parties in some way
• \there was no injury to innocent third parties as the government merely sent Duncan copies of previously seized child pornography.\
• we will closely examine those cases in which government misconduct injures third parties in some way
• ample evidence to conclude that defendant ordered and received what he knew to be child pornography

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).