United States v. Ricardo M. Infante

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the court did not need to “decide the proper standard of review” because the defendant’s argument “fail[ed] under either standard”
• affirming that district court properly responded to jury question about whether co-defendant drove the same vehicle as defendant when it advised, “[t]here is no evidence either way”
• remanding for an evidentiary hearing on adverse effect because the record was not “sufficiently developed”
• ‘‘[r]egardless of [Mickens’] clarification of the ter- minology [used in Sullivan], the relevant questions remain the same’’
• “[U]ncorroborated testimony of a co- conspirator can provide constitutionally sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.” (citing United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 721 (5th Cir. 2003))
• “A conflict [of interest] exists when defense counsel places himself in a position conducive to divided loyalties.” (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Medina, 161 F.3d 867, 870 n.1 (5th Cir. 1998))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).