United States v. James Pedroza, Francisco C. Pelaes, Jose Perez, and Enrique Jesus Osorno

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[t]he testimony was not hearsay since it plainly was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted” but “[r]ather, the statement was offered for its patent falsity”
• testimony was not hearsay because it plainly was not offered to prove truth of matter asserted; rather, statement was offered for its patent falsity
• but see United States v. Mohel, 604 F.2d 748, 753-54 (2d Cir. 1979)
• “[evidence concerning the] events involving the cocaine was necessary to the jury’s understanding of, for example, whether a kidnapping was intended, why a kidnapping might have been thought desirable”
• narcotics evidence introduced to prove motive for kidnapping

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).