United States v. Lavern Hankey, AKA Poo, Opinion

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the court’s Rule 104(a) authority allows it to exclude evidence under Rule 403
• observing that court considered agent's proffered testimony that witnesses were gang members in a Rule 104(a) hearing outside the jury's presence
• observing that court considered agent's proffered testimony that witnesses were gang members in a Rule 104(a) hearing outside the jury’s presence
• explaining that “[a] district court’s decision to exclude or admit evidence under FRE 403 is reviewed with considerable deference” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding that Daubert factors did not apply to a police officer’s 15 testimony based on 21 years of experience working undercover with gangs
• instructing that evidentiary rulings will be reversed “only if such . . . error more likely than not affected the verdict”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).