United States v. Deitz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that cumulative-error analysis is not relevant where no individual ruling was erroneous
• noting that plain-error review applied “to new suppression arguments raised for the first time on appeal” (citing United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724, 739 (6th Cir. 2006))
• reviewing whether the defendant affirmatively conveyed his withdrawal of a conspiracy such that the conspiracy charge was misjoined
• prosecutor should not refer to witness protection program unless need for protection is obvious, relevant, or made an issue by defense counsel
• no plain error in a case in which the defendant failed to preserve the question for appellate review
• no plain error in a case in which the defendant failed to preserve the question for appellate review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).