United States v. Paul Hite

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “expert testimony that generally explains the world of sexual fantasy on the Internet is permissible”
• noting that a dictionary defines “persuade” as “[t]o induce or win over (a person) to an act UNITED STATES V. ELLER 9 or course of action; to draw the will of (another
• noting that the federal Rule 16 “does not require the defendant to explain the basis of the proposed opinion’s admissibility,” and “requiring explanation of legal basis goes far beyond the purpose of the rule”
• reiterating that rulings alone are almost never a basis for recusal
• reiterating that rulings alone are almost never a basis for recusal
• admitting expert testimony -3- that defendant had not been diagnosed with a condition making him attracted to minors

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).