Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Ninth Circuit· 8/20/2007

United States v. Freeman

Citations

  • 498 F.3d 893
  • 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 19749
  • 2007 WL 2350657

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that an officer’s interpretation of “ambiguous statements consisting of ordinary terms,” like “that” was admissible as lay opinion testimony
  • holding that an officer’s interpretation of “ambiguous statements consisting of ordinary terms,” like “that” was admissible as lay opinion testimony
  • holding that there was no error in allowing a police officer with eleven years experience to testify as an expert regarding drug terminology
  • holding that the district court abused its discretion in admitting an agent’s testimony interpreting phone calls because some of the agent’s testimony consisted of “speculation or repetition of already clear statements”
  • holding that expert’s testimony on “interpretation of encoded drug jargon was admissible”
  • holding that expert’s testimony on “interpretation of encoded drug jargon was admissible”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gibson, Fisher, Callahan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

43 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Freeman

134 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.