United States v. Paul v. Oates

How courts have described this case

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

• HOLDING THAT POLICE RECORDS THAT WOULD BE INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS EXCEPTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED WOULD ALSO BE INADMISSIBLE UNDER ANY OTHER EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
• holding that the introduction of a chemist's report identifying a white powder seized from the defendant as heroin was improper in light of the fact that the chemist who prepared the report did not testify at trial
• recognizing that “some patterns of behavior which may seem innocuous enough to the untrained eye may not appear so innocent to the trained police officer who has witnessed similar scenarios numerous times before.”
• stating that officer’s belief “that the suspect may be armed and dangerous can be predicated on the nature of the criminal activity involved”
• stating that the police officer’s belief “that the suspect may be armed and dangerous can be predicated on the nature of the criminal activity involved.”
• explaining that U.S. Customs Service chemists who analyzed substances were “important participants in the prosecutorial effort” and subject to Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).