United States v. Joe Garcia, Guillermo Sandoval, and Mario Sandoval

How courts have described this case

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

• remarking, in an analogous case where the government's main witness was a professional, paid witness, that there was \more than the usual need for a cautionary instruction\
• \When the case is close and the witness particularly unreliable . . . this Court has declared that the failure to give a cautionary instruction amounts to plain error.\
• payment of $31,675 in eighteen months did not of itself mandate reversal, but amount did require scrutiny and created doubt “as to the propriety of the practice of so heavily subsidizing informants”
• payment of subsistence allowance and reward to informant is permissible when informant has not been promised a specific sum to convict a particular person; although a heavy subsidy of informants requires scrutiny and is of dubious propriety, “it does not of itself require reversal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).