United States v. Matthew Otis Charles

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that it is “well-settled” that the Fifth Amendment “does not endow the person who testifies with a license to commit perjury” (quoting United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 178 (1977))
• upholding district court’s decision not to set aside statements in affidavit for poor draftsmanship or unintentional errors
• failure to suppress cell phone did not harm defendant because government never introduced it at trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).