United States v. Melvin Joe

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a prospective juror’s youth and maturity level are legitimate, race-neutral considerations under Batson
• holding that physician's testimony regarding patient's statement that she was afraid because she thought her husband might kill her was a statement of memory or belief, and thus was inadmissible under Rule 803 (3), Fed.R.Evid.
• holding the victim’s assertion of why she was afraid was a statement of memory or belief and was excluded by the state-of- mind exception to the rule against hearsay
• holding doctor’s testimony admissible under Federal Evidence Rule 803(4) where “the identity of the sexual assailant was important for his recommendation regarding Ms. Joe’s after-care, including appropriate counseling”
• holding doctor’s testimony admissible under Federal Evidence Rule 803(4) where “the identity of the sexual assailant was important for his recommendation regarding Ms. Joe’s aftercare, including appropriate counseling”
• stating that in domestic sexual abuse cases, “[t]he physician generally must know who the abuser was in order to render proper treatment because the physician’s treatment will necessarily differ when the abuser is a member of the victim’s family or household”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).