United States v. Stephen B. Zackson and Henry Acierno, Peter Lagatta

How courts have described this case

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

• “The government has broad latitude in the inferences it may reasonably suggest to the jury during summation.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “Where a defendant claims that his conduct has an innocent explanation, prior act evidence is generally admissible to prove that the defendant acted with the state of mind necessary to commit the offense charged.”
• “[E]vidence that [defendant] had previously engaged in narcotics trafficking with [co-defendant] is highly probative of [defendant’s] intent to enter another drug conspiracy with the same co- conspirator, and to rebut [defendant’s] defense of innocent association.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).