United States v. Joseph F. Agostino, Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that prosecutor’s mere request that witness not discuss his testimony with defense counsel, while acknowledging his right to do so, did not constitute a due process violation
• holding that the district court should have considered only personal benefit in its § 2C1.1 calculation because the relevant criminal activity was not \jointly undertaken\
• noting that Rule 43(a) “has as its source the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments”
• reasoning that a rational jury could have found defendant’s explanation not credible
• mentioning a sentence of four months for offering a bribe of $4,000
• “The jury ... has the choice to disbelieve the defendant’s testimony regarding [her] intent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).