United States v. Kwame Kilpatrick

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an agent’s references to laws and regulations pertaining to campaign contributions to the defendant’s civic fund was lay opinion testimony because the jury “would have learned the basic contours of what it means to be a § 501(c)(4
• observing that “[law enforcement] agents are free to read aloud from admitted documents, even if there are minor discrepancies between the written and spoken texts”
• suggesting that the risk of prejudice is reduced where defendants are “free to challenge the accuracy of any summary testimony through cross-examination”
• noting that the measure of restitution is the victim’s loss, not the defendant’s gain
• noting that “the MVRA does not require courts to calculate restitution with exact precision”
• stating that when a case agent, despite a professional law enforcement background, “relies on his or her personal knowledge of a particular investigation, the agent’s opinion may be lay opinion testimony under Rule 701.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).