United States v. Raul Melecio-Rodriguez

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that post arrest statements made by coconspirator to law enforcement officer were not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), but admission of testimony was harmless because officer's testimony was cumulative
• holding that post arrest statements made by coconspirator to law enforcement officer were not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), but admission of testimony was harmless because officer's testimony was cumulative
• noting that “[a]n error in admitting testimony may be harmless if the testimony is corroborated by independent sources, or if it amounts to cumulative evidence on matters already before the jury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).