United States v. Josephberg

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding there was not ex post facto violation for sentencing numerous acts of tax evasion under the new guidelines
• stating that “[d]ifferences in recollection do not constitute perjury”
• “[W]hen testimonial inconsistencies are revealed on cross-examination, the jury is entitled to weigh the evidence and decide the credibility issues for itself.” (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “the jury is free to believe part and disbelieve part of any witness’s testimony”
• citation, internal quotation marks, and alterations 3 In certain cases, the Court has employed a variant of this test using only the second and third factors. See United States v. Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260, 282-83 (2d Cir. 2011

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).