United States v. Louis Rinchack

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding denial of writ where defendant failed to provide an offer of proof
• “[A] district court may refuse to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum solely on the grounds that the petition is untimely.”
• “A trial court is not required to grant an eleventh hour request for [§] 3006A(e) services, particularly where the delay in making the request is unjustified and would require a continuance of the . . . trial.”
• “Although Rinchack argues that the district court erred in not inquiring into what the two men might be expected to testify, the law is crystal clear that the burden of showing necessity and relevance is on the defendant.”
• “The grant or denial of a Rule 17(b) motion is committed to the discretion of the district court 8 USCA11 Case: 18-11248 Date Filed: 10/22/2020 Page: 9 of 26 and is subject to reversal on appeal only upon a showing of abuse of that discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).