United States v. William Stivers

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that combined prejudice of various different evidentiary errors and trial court’s handling of issues related to jury’s use of transcripts of audio recordings necessitated a new trial
• stating that “Rule 106 covers an order of proof problem; it is not designed to make something admissible that should be excluded”
• noting that judicial statements “amount[ing] to criticism and disapproval of defendants” do not satisfy the “‘extreme’ bias or prejudice standard under Liteky”
• affirming denial of recusal motion because the “judge’s statements amount[ed] to criticism and disapproval of defendants . . . not deep-seated favoritism or antagonism”
• “[T]he district court must decide whether there is sufficient evidence that the other act in question actually occurred” before admitting the evidence.
• the rule of lenity “comes into operation at the end of the process of construing what Congress has expressed, not at the beginning” (quoting Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587, 596 (1961))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).