United States v. Tran Trong Cuong, M.D.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a doctor’s report prepared at the request of counsel for the government was a forensic medical opinion and not of the type relied upon by experts in forming opinions
• holding that an expert could not bolster his own testimony by stating that the results of other tests, not in evidence, were “essentially the same” as his own opinion
• holding that the dis- trict court erred in permitting a family medicine physician to bol- ster his opinion with another expert’s forensic medical opinions prepared specifically for litigation because those are not the types of opinions on which an expert would rely
• noting that the government was introducing evidence that the defendant unlawfully prescribed con- trolled substances not as 404(b) evidence, but instead as direct evi- dence to prove the crime charged in the indictment
• noting that “the Sanders exception appl[ies] to any colorable 19 constitutional claim of due process violation that implicates [e.g.] a due process right . . . to a 20 meaningful opportunity to be heard”
• expert witness may rely on admissible opinions of other experts but cannot merely copy or parrot another expert’s report

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).