United States v. Nathan Valerio

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, although informant’s statement could not be considered for its truth, other testimony could be used to prove the same proposition
• observing that only the defendant’s right to vote had been restored
• “Nothing the undercover informant said would be considered by the jury for its truth, but only to give context to what [the defendant] said, under the admonition.”
• district court did not abuse discretion in admitting recorded conversation between informant and defendant and instructing jury not to consider informant’s statements for their truth
• “By contrast to the right to vote, no civil right could be more relevant to a felon’s future dangerousness than the right to possess firearms.”
• “By contrast to the right to vote, no civil right could be more relevant to a felon’s future dangerousness than the right to possess firearms.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).