United States v. Leon Dukagjini

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that introduction of recorded conversations via an expert’s testimony violated the Confrontation Clause where no expertise was needed to understand the conversation
• holding that “in some cases it may be difficult to discern the line between permissible and impermissible reliance on hearsay”
• holding that error regarding case agent testimony was harmless where multiple cooperating witnesses “testified extensively” as to defendant’s guilt
• noting that when an expert witness provides lay testi- mony it implicates the concern under Rule 403 of juror confu- sion
• noting that it is the role of district courts to remain “vigilant gatekeepers” to ensure that the expert witness not deviate “from the strictures of Rule[ 11-]403 and [Rule 11]702”
• noting that ―a hearsay objection would not in itself preserve a Confrontation Clause claim‖

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).