United States v. James Norton, United States of America v. Paul Fosco, James Pinckard, Paul A. Di Franco, James Norton, Defendants

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “alleged harassment or intimidation of one juror by another would not be competent evidence to impeach the guilty verdict”
• finding that four hours of deliberation be- tween the Allen charge and the verdict was “not suggestive of a coercive or pressure-filled atmosphere”
• deeming the prosecutor’s questions at closing argument -- “Is any other expla- nation reasonable? Not that you heard one, but is any other expla- nation reasonable?” -- to be logical inferences from the evidence
• \[U]nsolicited disclosure of the jury's division by a juror is not by itself a ground for a mistrial.\
• “The jury deliberated some four hours after the trial court’s supplementary instruction, a time period not suggestive of a coercive or pressure-filled atmosphere.”
• “The district court possesses broad discretion to admit evidence if it has any tendency to prove or disprove a fact in issue.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).