United States v. Serge Edouard

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a jury could have found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the extrinsic conduct based on uncontested testimony
• holding that when a defendant needs a question to be rephrased, that alone does not create a duty to inquire
• holding that the district court did not commit plain error by admitting evidence, in a drug conspiracy prosecution, of uncharged drug smuggling activity that occurred prior to the conspiracy charged in the indictment
• concluding that witness’ testimony that the defendant threatened to kill her if she did not return his deposit was an integral part of how the defendant laundered those funds
• holding that a two-year time span did not render the extrinsic acts too remote
• concluding extrinsic evidence is relevant “where the state of mind required for the charged and extrinsic offenses is the same”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).