United States v. Poulsen

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that questioning prospective jurors is “the primary tool for discerning actual prejudice” (quotation omitted)
• finding the necessity requirement satisfied where the government had “used a confidential informant, consensual recordings, a pen register, physical surveillance, and documents before resorting to the wiretap”
• finding the necessity requirement satisfied where the government had “used a confidential informant, consensual recordings, a pen register, physical surveillance, and documents before resorting to the wiretap.”
• finding necessity satisfied when the supporting affidavit “specifically mentioned that the government used a confidential informant, consensual recordings, a pen register, physical surveillance, and documents before resorting to the wiretap”
• losing party must object at trial after conditional denial of motion in limine
• discussing United States v. Brawner, 173 F.3d 966, 970 (6th Cir. 1999)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).