United States v. Jose Cabrera, AKA Jose Cabarra

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that proof of an express agreement is not required; circumstantial evidence showing a “tacit understanding” between conspirators is sufficient
• stating that proof of an express agreement is not required, and that circumstantial evidence showing a \tacit understanding\ between conspirators is sufficient
• \An appellate court is 'not in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses . . . .'\
• \The government is not required to prove that an express agreement existed. [R]ather . . . [it] need only establish a tacit understanding between the parties.\
• existence of plea agreements or offer of leniency in exchange for testimony is relevant for assessing credibility of witnesses, but it is within the province of the jury to make that assessment and resolve conflicting testimony
• requiring “knowing involvement and cooperation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).