United States v. Jermar Jones

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that court may rely on a juror’s assurance of impartiality if the court finds the juror credible
• holding that statements made in “casual conversations” on prison telephone calls were not testimonial and their admission did not violate Confrontation Clause
• observing that “any incriminating statement made during these conversations tended to also incriminate” the declarants themselves, belying any purported “testimonial” purpose
• noting that the court may rely on a juror's assurance of continued impartiality if the court finds it credible
• declining to classify jail calls as testimonial because they were not made with the intent or expectation of being used against a co- conspirator
• rejecting argument that knowledge of the recording alone renders statements testimonial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).