United States v. Oscar Ronda

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the district court carefully interviewed each juror individually outside of the presence of other jurors about the issue and found that the extrinsic evidence had not rendered any juror incapable of deciding the case impartially
• noting that the district court carefully interviewed each juror individually outside of the presence of other jurors about the issue and found that the extrinsic evidence had not rendered any juror incapable of deciding the case impartially
• defendants all established “statutory Booker error” because they “were sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines system”
• Section 1512(b)(3) “criminalizes the transfer of misleading information” (quoting United States v. Veal, 153 F.3d at 1252)
• defendants all established “statutory Booker error” because they “were sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines system”
• District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for mis- trial after excusing two jurors who introduced extrane- ous information into deliberations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).