Prosecutors love using summary witnesses, usually their case agents, at trial. As the closing, wrap-up witness, an agent can testify about summary
In bank fraud cases, sentencing courts are obliged under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines to fix the "loss" at the greater of actual or intended loss to the victim, and to resort to the (usually more defendant-friendly) lesser gain from the offense only if that loss "reasonably cannot be determined."
Under Fed. Evid. 404(b), the government often seeks to introduce evidence of prior conduct by a defendant, ostensibly because such conduct is probative of one of the Rule's permitted purposes for introducing extraneous evidence, such as showing that the presently-charged conduct was committed intentionally and not by accident or mistake.
As we have previously examined in this space, here, here and here , the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has when considering the admission of a prior statement by a witness most recently focused on whether or not the statement was “testimonial.”
Often, the government finds itself desirous of introducing the prior civil deposition testimony of a witness who is unavailable for trial, occasionally because the witness is deceased or cannot be located.
In an important decision for the right to a fair trial, the Second Circuit recently held that a detective -- testifying against the only charged defendant in a case involving the seizure of weapons from a minivan occupied by several persons besides that defendant -- could be impeached with prosecutors' initial decision to charge other occupants of the vehicle with possession of those firearms.
Normally, trial judges are vigilant in ensuring that every step in a jury's deliberative process takes place within the confines of a single location: the jury deliberation room.
In a previous post, we explored the views of the Tenth Circuit, seconded by the Second Circuit, that a sentencing court could reduce the "tax loss" charged against a defendant by crediting him with deductions not taken on the filed but false tax returns.
This author has on several occasions examined the interesting and unpredictable path traced by the Supreme Court’s recent Confrontation Clause jurisprudence, both in blog posts and in longer form analyses.
Generally, governing ethics rules permit joint representation under circumstances where, at minimum, the affected clients have full knowledge of the potential for conflict of interest and knowingly waive any such conflict.