United States v. James Harrison Hathaway

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no constructive amendment where the indictment charged receipt of checks known to be “stolen, converted, and taken by fraud,” but the court instructed the jury to convict if it found the checks were known to be “stolen, converted, or taken by fraud”
• “there is no reason why a proper foundation for application of Rule 803(6) cannot be laid, in part or in whole, by the testimony of a government agent”
• \[A]ll that is required is that the [sponsoring] witness be familiar with the record keeping system.\
• FBI agent permitted to lay foundation where agent had familiarity with the record-keeping system
• “It is well established that federal law favors the admission of evidence which has any probative value at all.”
• “an impermissible variance does not occur when, although an indictment charges several acts in the conjunctive, the district court charges the jury in the disjunctive”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).