United States v. Hung Shun Lin, A/K/A Chang Wu

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging that a trial court is within its discretion to limit cross-examination on prejudicial matter without reasonable grounding in fact
• noting that, to determine that a trial court committed plain error, the alleged error 'must ... have been error under settled law of the Supreme Court or of this circuit' (emphasis added)
• declining to conclude “that it was plain error for the court not to sua sponte strike” a witness’s remark and observing that “[d]efense counsel may have had strategic reasons for not objecting”
• rejecting the argument that § 1203 was never intended to cover a mere garden variety domestic kidnapping-similar to Noel's street crime argument-because the plain terms of the statute encompassed the conduct in the case
• “counsel must have a reasonable basis for asking questions on cross-examination which tend to incriminate or degrade the witness”
• “Highly No. 02-4010 15 prejudicial questioning of the sort proposed here, however, requires a reasonable grounding in fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).