United States v. John Andrew Greschner, Ronnie Joe Criswell

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that denial of court-appointed penologist did not violate Fifth Amendment in part because defendants elicited the same testimony from other witnesses
• holding harmless the jury's exposure to extraneous newspaper article because the contents of that article had already been admitted in evidence
• applying plain error standard where defendant failed to object to the presence of government attorneys at hearing on § 3006A(e) motion for appointment of penologist
• reviewing analogous federal rule and concluding that mere speculation about possibility of conversations between witnesses does not provide reviewing court with meaningful guidance in assessing prejudice to defendant or abuse of discretion and provides no basis for reversal
• Section 3006A(e) expert not “necessary” if the testimony he would give can be provided by other witnesses
• circumvention of sequestration order where \witnesses indirectly defeat its purpose by discussing testimony they have given and events in the courtroom with other witnesses who are to testify\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).