United States v. Reinaldo A. Arocho, Marc Flores and Jesse Colon

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that testimony about the spe- cific sentences the testifying co-conspirators faced was, “at best, . . . marginally relevant” and outweighed by the potential for jury prejudice
• affirming limitation on cross-examination of potential sentences and sentencing guideline ranges that cooperating witnesses faced, and recognizing that such a “detailed inquiry could place in dispute many side issues, and could also confuse the jury as to the real issue at hand”
• affirming limitation on cross-examination of potential sentences and sen- tencing guideline ranges that cooperating witnesses faced, and recognizing that such a “detailed inquiry could place in dispute many side issues, and could also confuse the jury as to the real issue at hand”
• “[T]he district court’s ruling restricting testimony about the specific sentencing guideline ranges and sentences did not impact the appellants’ Sixth Amendment rights.”
• “[T]he district court’s ruling restricting testimony about the specific sentencing guideline ranges and sentences did not impact the appellants’ Sixth Amendment rights.”
• “[T]his testimony would place before the jury information from which it could infer the potential sentences the appellants faced and that could improperly sway the jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).