United States v. Redlightning

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a hearsay statement lacked “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” under residual hearsay exception in part because it was uncorroborated and in part because extrinsic evidence contradicted it
• holding that under United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009), the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert testimony where “the district court’s line of reasoning was plausible”
• holding a statement was not sufficiently trustworthy in part be- cause the declarant recanted
• discussing whether Redlightning could have been presented to a magistrate at the start of the arraignment calendar or before the arraignment calendar ended
• telling jurors that “evidence of the defendant’s commission of another offense of sexual assault ... may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant”
• finding expert neuropsychiatrist, whose expertise included analysis of 8 defendant’s mental condition, was not qualified to testify about physical symptoms of 9 hypoglycemia or whether defendant was susceptible to giving false confession during a police 10 interrogation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).