United States v. Larry E. Stott, Jr., Robert A. Gaughan, Also Known as Bob, and Lonnie M. Ford, Also Known as Lonnie

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “ ‘[t]he repeated ‘fronting’ of [drugs], alone, has been held sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that the defen- dant had knowingly joined a distribution conspiracy.’ ” (alteration in original
• recognizing that “ ‘[t]he repeated ‘fronting’ of [drugs], alone, has been held sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that the defen- dant had knowingly joined a distribution conspiracy.’ ” (alteration in original
• stating that ―we cannot say that the law is clear on the question of whether Brady should apply to suppression hearings‖
• “Questions of witness credibility are reserved for the jury, and its assessments will not be second guessed by an appellate panel.” (internal quotation marks and cita- tion omitted)
• describing a circuit split on the issue
• interstate travel with intent to distribute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).