Ninth Circuit· 11/4/2010

United States v. Wright

Citations

625 F.3d 583
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23038
2010 WL 4345670

How courts have described this case

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

holding that there was no plain error when the prosecutor asked the defendant questions concerning a “rogue agent” during “a fairly argumentative cross-examination in order to poke holes in [the defendant’s] version of the facts”
holding that the amendments “effected a substantial change in section 2252A(a)(1)”
noting that it is not misconduct to refer to defense’s case, testimony, or argument as “absolutely ridiculous,” an “absurd notion,” “trash,” or a “silly story” (collecting cases)
vouching statements were harmless because they “were relatively isolated incidents over the course of a ten day trial”
vouching statements were harmless because they \were relatively isolated incidents over the course of a ten day trial\
reviewing “de novo” a “challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, including questions of statutory interpretation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hug, Smith, Hogan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

93 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.