United States v. John Fitzgerald Rogers

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence of a prior conviction “not introduced to attack a witness’s credibility falls outside [Rule 609’s] scope”
• recognizing the distinct domains of Rules 404(b) and 609 and refusing the “invitation to conflate them”
• finding that evidence of defendant’s prior arrest for distributing crack was properly admitted under Rule 404(b
• noting that Rule 609 governs “only the admissibility of 15 evidence introduced for impeachment” and declining to read its policies into the plain language of Rule 404(b)
• describing objecting party's burden \to make clear to the district court that he is pressing his point\ (quoting Krause v. Chartier, 406 F.2d 898, 901 (1st Cir. 1968))
• “If . . . a lawyer has acquiesced in a ruling he once claimed was erroneous, the lawyer must reassert his prior objection if he expects to 17 preserve it for appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).