United States v. John Dietrich

How courts have described this case

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

• holding prior inconsistent statement made during interrogation inadmissible given the absence of legal formality
• “If a prior inconsistent statement meets the [oath and cross-examina- tion] requirements of Rule 801(d)(1)(A) it may be ad- mitted as substantive evidence . . . . A prior inconsistent statement that does not meet one of the criteria of Rule 801(d)(1)(A

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).