18 Cited authorities

Richardson v. Marsh
481 U.S. 200 (1987) Cited 3,788 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding codefendant’s confession that "was not incriminating on its face," but "became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial," to "fall outside" narrow Bruton exception
Bruton v. United States
391 U.S. 123 (1968) Cited 8,944 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant
Bourjaily v. United States
483 U.S. 171 (1987) Cited 2,741 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that trial judge may consider any evidence whatsoever, including the proffered hearsay statements, in determining whether statements are admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule
Doyle v. Ohio
426 U.S. 610 (1976) Cited 4,444 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution may not use a defendant's silence against him after he has received government assurances
Lilly v. Virginia
527 U.S. 116 (1999) Cited 1,128 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements against penal interest "are suspect insofar as they inculpate other persons" and that "the absence of a promise of leniency to [a declarant] does not enhance his statement's reliability to the level necessary for their untested admission"
Gray v. Maryland
523 U.S. 185 (1998) Cited 877 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding confession redactions that obviously refer to defendant fall within Bruton ’s protective rule
United States v. Grinnell Corp.
384 U.S. 563 (1966) Cited 2,650 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."
Cruz v. New York
481 U.S. 186 (1987) Cited 654 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding error may be harmless where co-defendant's statement is duplicative of defendant's
Krulewitch v. United States
336 U.S. 440 (1949) Cited 991 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an out-of-court statement of one conspirator may be admitted against his fellow conspirator only if the statements were "made pursuant to and in furtherance of objectives of the conspiracy charged"
United States v. Hodges
770 F.2d 1475 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 61 times
Holding an error is harmless if "it is more probable than not that the erroneous admission of the evidence did not affect the jury's verdict"
Section 922 - Unlawful acts
18 U.S.C. § 922 Cited 60,913 times 183 Legal Analyses
Finding that "even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce"
Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
Fed. R. Evid. 403 Cited 22,678 times 81 Legal Analyses
Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks
Rule 404 - Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
Fed. R. Evid. 404 Cited 16,763 times 65 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that even uncharged similar acts can be probative of a defendant's intent and knowledge concerning charged offenses
Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 401 Cited 13,508 times 35 Legal Analyses
Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"
Rule 104 - Preliminary Questions
Fed. R. Evid. 104 Cited 3,315 times 12 Legal Analyses
Noting that, in making preliminary determinations relevant to admissibility, "the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege"
Section 23152 - Unlawful driving under the influence
Cal. Veh. Code § 23152 Cited 2,979 times 1 Legal Analyses
Driving under the influence
Rule 105 - Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other Parties or for Other Purposes
Fed. R. Evid. 105 Cited 626 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing district court's power to admit evidence for a limited purpose

USA v. Azano Matsura et al

18 Cited authorities

Holding codefendant’s confession that "was not incriminating on its face," but "became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial," to "fall outside" narrow Bruton exception

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant

Holding that trial judge may consider any evidence whatsoever, including the proffered hearsay statements, in determining whether statements are admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule

Holding that the prosecution may not use a defendant's silence against him after he has received government assurances

Holding that statements against penal interest "are suspect insofar as they inculpate other persons" and that "the absence of a promise of leniency to [a declarant] does not enhance his statement's reliability to the level necessary for their untested admission"

Holding confession redactions that obviously refer to defendant fall within Bruton ’s protective rule

Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."

Holding error may be harmless where co-defendant's statement is duplicative of defendant's

Holding that an out-of-court statement of one conspirator may be admitted against his fellow conspirator only if the statements were "made pursuant to and in furtherance of objectives of the conspiracy charged"

Holding an error is harmless if "it is more probable than not that the erroneous admission of the evidence did not affect the jury's verdict"

Finding that "even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce"

Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

Recognizing that even uncharged similar acts can be probative of a defendant's intent and knowledge concerning charged offenses

Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

Noting that, in making preliminary determinations relevant to admissibility, "the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege"

Driving under the influence

Recognizing district court's power to admit evidence for a limited purpose