United States v. Dennis Essington Green, United States of America v. Daniel S. Frano

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that irrelevant evidence of intent to distribute drugs was a “highly inflammatory trial tactic which innately prejudiced Appellants’ rights to a fair trial”
• admission of various types of expert testimony held inadmissible because it was of “both dubious relevance and cumulative.”
• “delicate balance between the probative value of [expert] testimony and its capacity to engender vindicative passions within the jury or to confuse the issues”
• \delicate balance between the probative value of [expert] testimony and its capacity to engender vindicative passions within the jury or to confuse the issues\
• statements made by accused to third party and overheard by federal agent were not discoverable because wording of Rule 16(a)(1)(A) required that only statements made by defendants to government officials be disclosed
• “Such facts may be highly relevant in assessing the need for controlling the drug, but at trial they did not tend to prove a conspiracy charge. They could only serve to prejudice the jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).