United States v. William R. Drews

How courts have described this case

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

• “corroborating evidence may be circumstantial and ‘need only tend to link the defendant with the crime and may be of little weight when taken alone’ (citations omitted)”
• no suggestion by government that it had independently verified coconspirators’ testimony and limiting instruction given
• “Accomplice testimony is sufficient to support a conviction when it is not incredible or insubstantial on its face.”
• \Accomplice testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction when it is not incredible or insubstantial on its face.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).