United States v. Rafael Santana and Francis Fuentes

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “federal courts [must] refrain from using [their] supervisory power to conform executive conduct to judicially preferred norms by dismissing charges, absent cognizable prejudice”
• stating that Archer is “an outrageous misconduct case” decided on other grounds, and declining to follow Archer’s dicta regarding government misconduct
• stating that the “outrageous misconduct” doctrine is “moribund” and that “in practice, courts have rejected its application with almost monotonous regularity”
• explaining that \[t]he calculus [for determining the legitimacy of a claim of outrageous government misconduct] must be rooted in the record\
• stating that the two versions of the outrageous misconduct theory are extreme abuse of the defendant and over involvement of law enforcement personnel in the criminal conduct
• explaining that federal courts ordinarily should “refrain from using the supervisory power to conform executive conduct to judicially preferred norms by dismissing charges, absent cognizable prejudice to a particular defendant”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).