United States v. Lauder

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the evidence was sufficient to prove a transient occupant of a house had constructive possession of, and intent to distribute, drugs stored in the house
• subjecting such a violation to the harmless error analysis outlined in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967
• finding fingerprint evidence authenticated under F.R.E. 901 (b)(4) and also observing that the “authenticity of a fingerprint card may be inferred from circumstantial evidence”
• considering “the sufficiency of the evidence” regarding a district court’s determination of drug quantities attributable to the defendant and concluding that it “did not clearly err” in defining the scope of the defendant’s jointly undertaken criminal activity
• “[H]ere we are dealing with one off-the-cuff comment that was not repeated or highlighted at any other point in the trial.”
• “Daubert generally does not ... regulate the underlying facts or data that an expert relies on when forming her opinion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).