United States v. Warman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that whether a statement is in furtherance of a conspiracy turns on two facts—the context in which the statement was made and the declarant’s intent in making it
• noting that contested statements “were not unduly prejudicial” when “they were merely cumulative”
• noting that contested statements “were not unduly prejudicial” when “they were merely cumulative”
• confirming the defendant’s drug quantity claim was “one of procedural unreasonableness”
• where district court erroneously admitted two hearsay statements, testimony of other coconspirators was sufficient to find harmless error
• “As a general rule, a defendant may not raise ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for the first time on direct appeal, since there has not been an opportunity to develop and include in the record evidence bearing on the merits of the allegations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).