United States v. Muhlenbruch

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 district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403 when it permitted the government to play a defendant’s videotaped confession
• concluding that proof of receiving child pornography necessarily includes proof of possession of child pornography and that “Congress did not intend to impose multiplieitous punishment for these offenses”
• explaining that evidence is unduly prejudicial if, for example, it suggests a decision on an improper basis
• deciding a confession resulting from a twenty-two minute interview “at the police station” was voluntary where the suspect was in his late thirties, had prior experience with police questioning, and was “a relatively intelligent individual”
• finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court by allowing the jury to review a videotaped confession in open court
• finding a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause where defendant’s convictions for both possession and receipt of child pornography were based on the same conduct

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).