United States v. Michael Charles Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to voir dire juror because “[t]he court’s remarks demonstrate that the court had observed the juror in question and that it concluded that the juror was not in fact asleep”
• “Furthermore, Holder’s counsel did not request replacement of that juror by an alternate. Holder has not shown that he was prejudiced by the court’s action.”
• no abuse of discretion under federal rule of criminal procedure addressing disqualification of jurors for failing to question a juror who allegedly fell asleep where the court had observed the juror itself and had concluded that the juror was not asleep

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).