United States v. Sandy Check

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding the state had “audaciously” introduced out-of- court statements by supposedly restricting an undercover agent’s testimony to his half of the conversation
• concluding the state had “audaciously” introduced out-of-court statements by supposedly restricting an undercover agent’s testimony to his half of the conversation
• concluding harmlessness review “involves an analysis of the manner in which, in the total setting of the case, the error influenced the jury” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• concluding the state had “audaciously” introduced out-of- court statements by supposedly restricting an undercover agent’s testimony to his half of the conversation
• holding the questioner’s “device” of admonishing witness “without telling me what the declarant told you” was “improper and cannot miraculously transform inadmissible hearsay into admissible evidence”
• concluding harmlessness review “involves an analysis of the manner in which, in the total setting of the case, the error influenced the jury” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).