United States v. Robert B. Sutton, United States of America v. Mark A. Sucher

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “Rule 106 can adequately fulfill its function only by permitting the admission of some otherwise inadmissible evidence when the court finds in fairness that the proffered evidence should be considered contemporaneously”
• noting that “[a] contrary construction raises the specter of distorted and misleading trials, and creates difficulties for both litigants and the trial court”
• noting that although defendant should have been permitted to introduce excluded portions of his recorded conversations, such error did not require reversal where \substantial rights\ were unaffected and error \did not substantially influence\ the verdict
• commending the trial court for its efforts to avoid unfair prejudice by permitting \no significant discussion or inflammatory testimony about the actions underlying [the defendant's] prior convictions.\
• commending the trial court for its efforts to avoid unfair prejudice by permitting “no significant discussion or inflammatory testimony about the actions un derlying [the defendant’s] prior convictions.”
• purpose of rule is \to ensure that lawyers not prey on persons known to be represented by counsel\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).