United States v. Richard Romero

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under U.S.S.G. 2A3.1(b)(5) \abduction . . . means kidnapping whether kidnapping was committed by force of by the use of a force substitute such as inveigling.\
• recognizing “the value of ex- pert testimony in explaining a complicated criminal method- ology”
• stating that “modus operandi evidence has proved useful in drug trafficking cases,” including testi- 8 Nos. 03-2056 & 03-2171 mony “regarding various counter[-]surveillance techniques used by drug dealers to avoid detection”
• noting different standards under Daubert and Kumho Tire Co, Ltd v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed. 2d 238 (1999
• finding expert testimony “was helpful to the jury in understanding how child molesters operate—something with which most jurors would have little experience.”
• affirming district court’s admission of expert testimony explaining a child molester’s methods to attract No. 20-1394 19 and abuse children to help jury understand how some child molesters operate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).