10 Cited authorities

Curtis v. MS Petroleum
174 F.3d 661 (5th Cir. 1999) Cited 289 times
Holding that in order to be admissible, proffered expert testimony "must be grounded in the methods and procedures of [the relevant discipline] and must be more than unsupported speculation or subjective belief"
United States v. Wilkes
662 F.3d 524 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 141 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prosecutor's statement that a defense witness lied because he "has an ax to grind" was not improper reference to facts not in evidence
Government of Virgin Islands v. Smith
615 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1980) Cited 252 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that prosecutorial misconduct justified a court's ordering the prosecutor to grant statutory immunity and that a witness capable of producing "clearly exculpatory evidence" when the government can present no "strong countervailing systemic interest" justified a court ordering nonstatutory, judicial immunity
United States v. Chagra
669 F.2d 241 (5th Cir. 1982) Cited 113 times
Affirming admissibility of evidence of appellant's purchase of expensive private real estate in prosecution under continuing criminal enterprise statute
Hinojosa v. Butler
547 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 49 times
Concluding that data provided by plaintiff to show a pattern of police misconduct "beg more questions than they answer," including whether the number of complaints filed against San Antonio police "is high relative to other metropolitan police departments"
F.D.I.C. v. Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland
45 F.3d 969 (5th Cir. 1995) Cited 73 times
Finding "no constitutional bar to the admission of [a nonparty's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege]"
U.S. v. Wilson
322 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2003) Cited 45 times
Holding that district court erred in determination that government had established by a preponderance of evidence that letter was sent where witness's testimony about correspondence practices was contradictory and evinced a lack of personal knowledge
Beathard v. Johnson
177 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 1999) Cited 38 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no due process violation where the prosecutor “presented essentially the same two versions of the facts” but offered inconsistent arguments
Farace v. Independent Fire Ins. Co.
699 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1983) Cited 46 times
Holding that the district court did not err in excluding as unfairly prejudicial evidence of a party's assertion of his fifth amendment right
Coyle Lines v. United States
195 F.2d 737 (5th Cir. 1952) Cited 26 times
In Coyle Lines, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.2d 737, 741-42 (5th Cir. 1952), this court found a "particularly strong" adverse inference from the Government's failure to call employee-witnesses who would have supplied direct testimony regarding the subject matter of the lawsuit.

USA v. Scruggs et al

10 Cited authorities

Holding that in order to be admissible, proffered expert testimony "must be grounded in the methods and procedures of [the relevant discipline] and must be more than unsupported speculation or subjective belief"

Holding that a prosecutor's statement that a defense witness lied because he "has an ax to grind" was not improper reference to facts not in evidence

Affirming admissibility of evidence of appellant's purchase of expensive private real estate in prosecution under continuing criminal enterprise statute

Concluding that data provided by plaintiff to show a pattern of police misconduct "beg more questions than they answer," including whether the number of complaints filed against San Antonio police "is high relative to other metropolitan police departments"

Finding "no constitutional bar to the admission of [a nonparty's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege]"

Holding that district court erred in determination that government had established by a preponderance of evidence that letter was sent where witness's testimony about correspondence practices was contradictory and evinced a lack of personal knowledge

Finding no due process violation where the prosecutor “presented essentially the same two versions of the facts” but offered inconsistent arguments

Holding that the district court did not err in excluding as unfairly prejudicial evidence of a party's assertion of his fifth amendment right

In Coyle Lines, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.2d 737, 741-42 (5th Cir. 1952), this court found a "particularly strong" adverse inference from the Government's failure to call employee-witnesses who would have supplied direct testimony regarding the subject matter of the lawsuit.