United States v. Neil Saada and Isaac Saada, A/K/A Zuckie

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that prosecutor’s reference to cooperation agreements with Government witnesses was not plain error
• holding that “Rule 806 does not modify Rule 608(b)’s ban on extrinsic evidence of prior bad acts in the context of hearsay declarants, even when those declarants are unavailable to testify”
• explaining that the standards established by S 2254(d)(1) do not apply to issues not passed on in the state court proceedings
• finding that evidence of a defendant’s financial motive to commit the crime was appropriately admitted under Rule 404(b)
• explaining that evidence was “highly probative because it rebutted the defense’s contention”
• explaining that evidence was “highly probative because it rebutted the defense’s contention”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).