United States v. Millard Bowie

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “defense counsel’s performance was adversely affected by an actual conflict of interest if a specific and seemingly valid or genuine alternative strategy or tactic was available to defense counsel, but it was inherently in conflict with his duties to others ____”
• observing that when we review for plain error, \the standard actually applied is essentially the same as if there had been a timely motion for acquittal\
• noting that “the potential for conflict is great” in a successive-representation case “where there is a substantial relationship between the cases”
• stating that vouching can occur when counsel “implicitly indicat[es] that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’ testimony”
• clarifying that “[u]se of the ‘truthfulness’ portions” of plea agreements “becomes impermissible vouching only when the prosecutors explicitly or implicitly indicate that they can monitor and accurately verify the truthfulness of the witness’ testimony”
• not improper for prosecutor to elicit testimony that reveals a witness's obligation to tell the truth and the consequences of a breach of that obligation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).