United States v. Sherman T. Peneaux

How courts have described this case

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

• allowing hearsay testimony under Rule 807 where the victim’s testimony regarding the point was “inconsistent and at times unclear”
• admitting hearsay under Rule 807 when a child witness’s in-court testimony “was inconsistent and at times unclear”
• “Determining whether an injury is serious is an issue for the jury to decide based on its ‘common understanding’ of the term[.]”
• admitting prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence under Rules 807 and 803(4) despite the government “not refut[ing] [the] argument” that the statements “[could not] be admitted as substantive evidence under Rule 801(d)(1)(A)”
• admitting statements by two-year-old to doctor, where foster parents took child to pediatrician after noticing marks, there was no forensic interview, and the appointment did not result in referral to law enforcement
• “The materiality requirement in Rule 807 is merely a restatement of the general requirement that evidence must be relevant.” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).