United States v. Phoeun Lang

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an immigration document was not testimonial because an objectively reasonable person would not have understood the form to be used in prosecuting the defendant at trial
• holding that an immigration document was not testimonial because an objectively reasonable person would not have understood the form to be used in prosecuting the defendant at trial
• explaining that, under the first inquiry, “[a] party may be necessary under Rule 19(a
• observing that Crawford issue includes analysis of whether out-of-court statements were \testimonial\
• explaining the process of review of the naturalization form: “(1) an officer reviews the questions and answers with the applicant, (2) the applicant’s responses are confirmed, (3) after the responses are confirmed, they are checked in red by the officer, and (4
• explaining the process of review of the naturalization form: “(1) an officer reviews the questions and answers with the applicant, (2) the applicant’s responses are confirmed, (3) after the responses are confirmed, they are checked in red by the officer, and (4

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).