Skip to main content
· 5/1/1997

United States v. Henry Achiekwelu

Citations

  • 112 F.3d 747
  • 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 9393
  • 1997 WL 214806

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that this court will find an abuse of - 4 - discretion only if the district court’s evidentiary ruling was arbitrary or irrational
  • “Even when a district court admits evidence without objection, the district court has the discretion to grant a subsequent motion made after the close of the evidence to exclude the evidence.”
  • “Even when a district court admits evidence without objection, the district court has the discretion to grant a subse- quent motion made after the close of the evidence to exclude the evidence.”
  • “Even when a district court admits evidence without objection, the district court has the discretion to grant a subse- quent motion made after the close of the evidence to exclude the evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Murnaghan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.