Ninth Circuit· 10/25/2010

United States v. Redlightning

Citations

624 F.3d 1090
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21957
2010 WL 4158583

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).

Judges: Wardlaw, Gould, Mills

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

60 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.