United States v. James \Jamie\ Douglas, Martin L. \Marty\ Pruitt, Leon Mason, and James Anderson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court plainly erred by not giving a buyer-seller instruction sua sponte, where the theory had “some foundation in the evidence,” and that without the instruction, the jury might have mistakenly believed that mere drug sales alone suf- ficed to establish a conspiracy
• holding that the district court plainly erred by not giving a buyer-seller instruction sua sponte, where the theory had “some foundation in the evidence,” and that without the instruction, the jury might have mistakenly believed that mere drug sales alone suf- ficed to establish a conspiracy
• holding that the district court plainly erred by not giving a buyer-seller instruction sua sponte, where the theory had “some foundation in the evidence,” and that without the instruction, the jury might have mistakenly believed that mere drug sales alone suf- ficed to establish a conspiracy
• explaining that, when determining whether a defendant’s theory of defense is supported by the evidence, the court “must [] analyze[] [the conspiracy case] accord- ing to its specific facts” and “consider whether the defendant has put forth the defense during trial”
• explaining that, when determining whether a defendant’s theory of defense is supported by the evidence, the court “must [] analyze[] [the conspiracy case] accord- ing to its specific facts” and “consider whether the defendant has put forth the defense during trial”
• explaining that, when determining whether a defendant’s theory of defense is supported by the evidence, the court “must [] analyze[] [the conspiracy case] accord- ing to its specific facts” and “consider whether the defendant has put forth the defense during trial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).