United States v. Robert S. Palow, United States of America v. Paul C. Alvarado

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Rule 801(d)(2)(A) excludes the introduction of self-serving statements by the party making them
• severance not warranted in part because, even- if co-defendants were unable fo testify because trials were severed, sufficient independent evidence linked defendant to the crime
• \[I]t is beyond doubt that the challenged post- arrest statements were not made in furtherance of the conspiracy.\
• defendant waived claim <br>that trial should have been severed, regardless of fact that other <br>defendants moved for severance, because he did not individually <br>move for severance
• interpreting the nearly identical federal rule

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).