United States v. Larry Davis

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not err by excluding an eyewitness identification expert because “we are ‘especially hesitant to find an abuse of discretion unless the government’s case against the defendant rested exclusively 7 on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony’”
• acknowledging that section 3559(c)(3)(A) “allows a defendant to prove the prior robbery convictions are -6- nonqualifying by proving certain facts”
• “Congress could have enacted the three strikes statute independent of the disqualification provision, including only the statutory language defining all robberies as serious violent felonies.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).