United States v. Frank Dickerson, A.K.A. Lane, A.K.A. Frank Dixon

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that extrinsic evidence of cocaine purchases was sufficient to prove intent in conspiracy to distribute cocaine
• explaining that prior crim- inal convictions are relevant to show a defendant’s intent when “the extrinsic offense requires the same intent as the charged of- fense”
• recognizing a line of cases that have raised concerns about the “Due Process implications of separate prosecutions for the same crime under contradictory theories or inconsistent factual premises.”
• explaining that “[t]he materiality element is satisfied if the false testimony could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict” (quotation marks omitted)
• “[T]he uncorroborated word of an accomplice provides a sufficient basis for concluding that the defendant committed extrinsic acts admissible under Rule 404(b).” (quotation and ellipsis omitted)
• “The materiality element is satisfied if the false testimony could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).