United States v. Lucy Velez

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting that the district court’s omission of a cooperating witness instruction was not prejudicial in light of defense counsel’s summation
• explaining that an error in a jury charge may be cured by a subsequent, correct supplemental instruction
• noting in passing that failure to charge defense theory, though important, was not prejudicial, “since defense counsel forcefully argued” the issue in summation
• “[A] supplemental charge is not defective where it responds adequately to the jury’s request for clarification.”
• where defense counsel argued lack of accomplice's credibility in his summation, omission of accomplice instruction was not prejudicial
• “[E]ven if some error can be found in the supplemental charge, it will not ordinarily require reversal ... where a subsequent supplemental instruction cures the defect.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).