United States v. Herbert Marvin Feinberg

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that to show prejudice, a defend- ant “must show that but for the [error], the outcome of the trial probably would have been different”
• holding that to show prejudice, a defendant “must show that but for the [error], the outcome of the trial probably would have been different”
• explaining that “the reply brief is not the appropriate vehicle for presenting new arguments or legal theories to the court”
• explaining that lesser-included offenses, such as attempt, need not appear in indictment, so long as any departure from the strict terms of the indictment would neither surprise nor prejudice the defendant
• explaining that lesser‐included offenses, such as at‐ tempt, need not appear in indictment, so long as any depar‐ ture from the strict terms of the indictment would neither sur‐ prise nor prejudice the defendant
• “We agree that the practice [of juror questioning of witnesses] is acceptable in some eases, but do not condone it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).