21 Cited authorities

Bourjaily v. United States
483 U.S. 171 (1987) Cited 2,738 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
Illinois Tool Works v. Grip-Pak
461 U.S. 958 (1983) Cited 167 times
Discussing issue presented in Broz
United States v. Kendall
665 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1981) Cited 231 times
Holding that a defendant "has no right to know the details of the evidence to be introduced by the Government"
U.S. v. Oguns
921 F.2d 442 (2d Cir. 1990) Cited 152 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "intervening circumstances" diminished the taint of the federal agent's unlawful entry because "the agents read to [the defendant] a consent to search form, indicating [his] right to refuse to consent to a search" and the defendant read the form himself and signed it
United States v. Stratton
779 F.2d 820 (2d Cir. 1985) Cited 149 times
Holding that the discharge of a juror to observe a religious holiday was proper when "the record d[id] not present even the slightest basis to believe that Juror No. 10 [posed] an obstacle to reaching a unanimous verdict"
U.S. v. Long
905 F.2d 1572 (D.C. Cir. 1990) Cited 128 times
Holding caller's questions, “Can I speak with Keith? Does he still have any stuff? Does he have a fifty?” not hearsay because caller was seeking information and did not intend to make an assertion
U.S. v. Edmond
52 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Cited 106 times
Finding that similar statements and instructions "mitigated any prejudice from the anonymous jury procedure"
United States v. Weisz
718 F.2d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1983) Cited 131 times
Concluding that law enforcement is "under no duty to 'preserve' its conversations with [criminal defendants] by recording or otherwise memorializing them."
United States v. Hensel
699 F.2d 18 (1st Cir. 1983) Cited 127 times
Holding that an identification of defendants was not impermissibly suggestive where witness "was not subjected to a suggestive encounter, nor was the incident orchestrated by the government."
U.S. v. Layton
855 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 104 times
Holding that "deciding factor is what perspective client, not lawyer, thought
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,147 times 75 Legal Analyses
Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
Rule 104 - Preliminary Questions
Fed. R. Evid. 104 Cited 3,305 times 12 Legal Analyses
Requiring proof of facts necessary to establish relevance
Section 3505 - Foreign records of regularly conducted activity
18 U.S.C. § 3505 Cited 58 times
Providing that foreign records meeting its criteria "shall not be excluded as evidence by the hearsay rule"

USA v. Safavian

21 Cited authorities

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

Discussing issue presented in Broz

Holding that a defendant "has no right to know the details of the evidence to be introduced by the Government"

Holding that "intervening circumstances" diminished the taint of the federal agent's unlawful entry because "the agents read to [the defendant] a consent to search form, indicating [his] right to refuse to consent to a search" and the defendant read the form himself and signed it

Holding that the discharge of a juror to observe a religious holiday was proper when "the record d[id] not present even the slightest basis to believe that Juror No. 10 [posed] an obstacle to reaching a unanimous verdict"

Holding caller's questions, “Can I speak with Keith? Does he still have any stuff? Does he have a fifty?” not hearsay because caller was seeking information and did not intend to make an assertion

Finding that similar statements and instructions "mitigated any prejudice from the anonymous jury procedure"

Concluding that law enforcement is "under no duty to 'preserve' its conversations with [criminal defendants] by recording or otherwise memorializing them."

Holding that an identification of defendants was not impermissibly suggestive where witness "was not subjected to a suggestive encounter, nor was the incident orchestrated by the government."

Holding that "deciding factor is what perspective client, not lawyer, thought

Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

Requiring proof of facts necessary to establish relevance

Providing that foreign records meeting its criteria "shall not be excluded as evidence by the hearsay rule"