United States v. Milford Clark

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because the defendant “put his identity at issue … we do not find that the prejudicial value substantially outweighed the probative value of [the] evidence”
• explaining that renewed Faretta warnings are appropriate when the government reveals plans to introduce more complex evidence than previously contemplated
• finding pro se defendant preserved a Rule 404(b) evidentiary argument when his pretrial brief generally objected to the government’s 404(b) motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).