United States v. William C. Brennan

How courts have described this case

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

• “[P]rior consistent statements may be admissible for rehabilitation even if not admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) .... ”
• government's \'impeachment' of its own witness\ does not prevent it from responding to defendant's impeachment of the same witness
• prior statement was not admissible to rebut a charge of improper motive, but it was admissible to clarify an inconsistency: “prior consistent statements may be admissible for rehabilitation even if not admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B)”
• the fact that the witness previously lied to the grand jury, “does not prevent the government from responding to appellant’s impeachment of [the witness], and that is especially true where, as here, the trial judge found that impeachment left the jury with a significant misimpression.”
• prior-act evidence relevant to explain racketeers’ relationship

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).