United States v. David Taylor

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of defendant’s prior conviction to show that defendant “knowingly possessed a firearm at another point in time”
• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting “evidence that Taylor had knowingly possessed a firearm at another point in time” to satisfy the mens rea element
• holding that officers’ testimony that defendant dropped a dark object while being chased and that officers later recovered a firearm in the same vicinity was sufficient evidence to affirm the jury’s conviction
• finding no abuse of discretion where the district court admitted evidence that the de- fendant “knowingly possessed a firearm at another point in time” to “satisfy the mens rea element of [knowing possession of a fire- arm]”
• spying no abused discretion \in admitting\ the challenged testimony because the defendant \made . . . voluntary statements to an individual who was not a government agent\ — thus \the statements are . . . not discoverable under\ Rule 16(a)(1)(A)
• “Because the district court treated the guidelines as mandatory, it committed an error that is plain.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).