United States v. Leonardo Monzon

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that drug distribution is a specific intent crime, and therefore evidence of the defendant’s intent is always relevant
• finding that a defendant’s possession of marijuana was not relevant to his intent to distribute
• finding that a defendant’s possession of marijuana was not relevant to his intent to distribute
• finding that a defendant’s possession of marijuana was not relevant to his intent to distribute
• asking an arrestee if he owns a car located at arrest scene does constitute interrogation under Innis and should not have been asked in absence of Miranda warnings
• affirming the admission of 404(b) evidence and stating that “[i]n cases involving specific intent crimes, intent is automatically in issue”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).