United States v. Evans, Cornell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that FBI agent's testimony that the FBI had received information that the defendant was involved in drug trafficking was not admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of .explaining why the FBI recruited individuals to cooperate against the defendant
• holding that “the agents’ motives for investigating . . . never became a fact of consequence to 29 the determination of the action” because the defendant never raised an allegation that he had “been improperly targeted or selectively prosecuted”
• explaining that “[s]ometimes courts excuse the use of hearsay evidence for background purposes” (emphasis added)
• describing how erroneous admission of hearsay evidence may run afoul of the Rules of Evidence, implicating Kotteakos, or the Confrontation Clause, implicating Chapman
• finding no inducement where the defendant “independently decided to provide the drugs out of friendship,” not “because of any plea from” his friend
• “The problem with hearsay is that it deprives the defendant of the opportunity to cross-examine the person who uttered the statement at issue.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).