United States v. Ralph Lamont Nunn, A/K/A Monte Duke

How courts have described this case

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

• “The psychologist’s testimony would have shed no light on the elements of [the defendant’s affirmative] defense. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony.”
• “Expert testimony of a psychiatrist or psychologist is admissible to prove a defendant’s unusual susceptibility to inducement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).