United States v. Robert Benveniste

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 rejection of the exculpatory hearsay [testimony of a government witness] was in error, particularly in view that accusatory hearsay was admitted”
• holding that the exclusion of such evidence “deprived appellant of crucial substantiation of his asserted defense ***.*** As a result, his case was ‘far less persuasive than it might have been’ ” (quoting Chambers, 410 U.S. at 294, 35 L. Ed. 2d at 308, 93 S. Ct. at 1045)
• holding that the exclusion of such evidence “deprived appellant of crucial substantiation of his asserted defense ***. *** As a result, his case was ‘far less persuasive then it might have been’ ” (quoting Chambers , 410 U.S. at 294, 35 L. Ed. 2d at 308, 93 S. Ct. at 1045)
• when evidence of accusatory statements admitted, error to exclude at same trial evidence of exculpatory statements made by same declarant regarding same subject matter
• no abuse of discretion in exclusion of expert testimony on psychological susceptibility to inducement and lack of predisposition where district court determined it would tend to confuse jury and not very probative

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).