United States v. Victor Kiendra

How courts have described this case

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

• no question raised whether crimes of possession of stolen vehicle and receiving stolen goods were crimen falsi for Rule 609(a)(2) purposes; where admission is under Rule 609(a)(2) instead of 609(a)(1), balancing is not required
• “[S]olitary confinement [for thirty days] . . . cannot be presumed to have weakened [a suspect’s] will to such an extent that he was incompetent to exercise his rights.”
• If the government has “special reason to question a particular defendant’s willingness to testify,” it should so advise the district court, which may take this consideration into account in deciding whether to give an advance ruling on admissibility
• defendant on month-long hunger strike in solitary confinement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).