United States v. Virgen-Moreno

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a district court is “not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and the scope of the court’s investigation is within its sound discretion”
• “In attempting to establish that a prosecutor’s improper comments constitute reversible error, the criminal defendant bears a substantial burden.”
• “The district court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing .... The reasons that [the juror] offered [in a note] were sufficient factual support for the district court’s decision.”
• “We test the magnitude of the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s remarks by considering them in the context of the trial and attempting to ascertain their intended effect.”
• “There is a routine booking question exception to the Miranda rule that covers a person's name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and current age. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990) (plurality opinion)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).