United States v. Jose Luis Oropeza and Mark James Minton

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that trial court did not err in allowing witness to testify, despite his violation of the Rule, when “no showing of prejudice” was made
• concluding that trial court did not err in allowing witness to testify, despite his violation of the Rule, when “no showing of prejudice” was made
• deciding that intercepted transaction was “distribution” because “attempted transfer constitutes … a delivery”
• deciding that intercepted transaction was “distribution” because “attempted transfer constitutes … a delivery”
• deciding that intercepted transaction was “distribution” because “attempted transfer constitutes … a delivery”
• inadmissible as “[the declarant’s] statement was merely a general assertion of [the defendant’s] innocence rather than an assertion of his own culpability. There was nothing in it that would necessarily subject [the declarant] to criminal liability” [Footnotes omitted]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).