United States v. McCaleb

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the Daubert factors are flexible, but using only the Daubert factors in evaluating whether the district court abused its discretion when allowing testimony of a forensic chemist
• recognizing “such a practice ‘comports with common sense as well as efficiency and fairness’” (quoting Larson v. Neimi, 9 F.3d 1397, 1402 (9th Cir. 1993)
• recognizing “such a practice ‘comports with common sense as well as efficiency and fairness’”
• holding trial court did not err in failing to define “manufacture”
• “[A] district court plainly errs in a conspiracy case if it fails to instruct the jury on an element of the crime that is the object of the conspiracy.” (quotation omitted)
• “A [trial] court does not commit plain error by failing to define a word when it is a common word which an average juror can understand and which the average juror could have applied to the facts of [the] case without difficulty.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).