united-states-v-csuks

1 Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Bourjaily v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

2 Conde v. Henry, 198 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 1999) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · medium confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 2 of 2 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Conde v. Henry”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“precluding [defendant's] attorney from arguing his theory of the defense in closing arguments” Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.

“violated [defendant's] right to counsel” Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.

3 Del. v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Delaware v. Van Arsdall”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

4 Evalt v. United States, 359 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1966) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Anton Vaughn Evalt v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“The court should [impose] upon the prosecutor the same restriction as to the effect of a verdict of not guilty as it impose[s]upon the defense.” Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.

5 Flynn v. CNN, Inc., 621 F. Supp. 3d 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · medium confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 2 of 2 located

How we matched this

The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.

View matched docket on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“as a matter of law[,] . . . by retweeting another's tweet, the retweeter is adopting every word in the tweet as their own.” Found — the brief joined separate passages with ellipses (Bluebook R. 5.3).

“there are many reasons that someone might retweet a statement; a retweet is not necessarily an endorsement of the original tweet, much less an endorsement of the unexpressed belief system of the original tweeter . . . .” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

6 Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. v. Fid. & Cas. Co. , 519 F. Supp. 668 (D. Del. 1981) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

7 Sea-Land Serv. v. Lozen Int'l, L.L.C., 285 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2002) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 2 of 2 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Lozen International, LLC”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“Yikes, Pls [sic] note the rail screwed us up . . . .” Found — minor punctuation or spacing differences.

“incorporated and adopted the contents of [the] original message, because her remark 'manifested an adoption or belief in [the] truth' of the information contained in the original e-mail.” Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.

8 Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 (1994) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Shannon v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

9 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Strickland v. Washington”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“Government violates the right to effective assistance when it interferes in certain ways with the ability of counsel to make independent decisions about how to conduct the defense.” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

10 United States v. Begay, No. 19-10251, 2022 WL 2235784 (9th Cir. June 22, 2022) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · medium confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.

View matched docket on CourtListener →

11 United States v. Birrell, 421 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1970) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Howard Mason Birrell”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

12 United States v. Castro-Cabrera, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (C.D. Cal. 2008) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Castro-Cabrera”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“analysis must be done on a case-by-case basis in order to avoid the injustice of having the meaning of a defendant's statement distorted by its lack of context.” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

13 United States v. Causey, 609 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1980) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Burl Eugene Causey, United States of America v. Burl Eugene Causey and Burl Eugene Causey, Jr”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“from its language it would reasonably be argued that [Rule 615(b)] does not grant counsel for a party the right to designate more than one representative.” Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.

14 United States v. Collicott, 92 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 1996) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Collicott”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

15 United States v. Daly, 974 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir. 1992) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. James Scott Daly”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

16 United States v. Dorsey, 677 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2012) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Dorsey”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

17 United States v. Farnham, 791 F.2d 331 (4th Cir. 1986) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. James K. Farnham”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

18 United States v. Franco, No. R1600268001-TUC-CKJ-EJM, 2017 WL 11466629 (D. Ariz. Sept. 7, 2017) pacer paywall only

Case exists as cited?

Pass · medium confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · opinion text unavailable

How we matched this

We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.

Why we couldn't check the quotes

We couldn't retrieve any opinion text for this citation from our public sources. The case may only be available on a paid service like Westlaw or Lexis. Without the text, we can't check whether the brief's quotes appear in the opinion.

View matched docket on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

These quotes have not been verified because the opinion text wasn't available. Use the docket link above to locate the cited ruling and compare directly.

Further, a defendant has a due process right to present his version of the facts. When evidence goes to the crux of the defense, exclusion of the evidence may be considered a constitutional violation of due process.

Not verified: opinion text unavailable.

19 United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170 (9th Cir. 1979) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Frank Stearns Giese”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“[t]here is no general rule allowing government to use a person's reading habits, literary tastes, or political views as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution.” Found — the brief joined separate passages from the opinion.

20 United States v. Haischer, 780 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 2015) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Heidi Haischer”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“Unfair prejudice is an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, common, though not necessarily, an emotional one.” Found — the brief joined separate passages from the opinion.

21 United States v. Holmes, No. 5:18-cr-00258-EJD-1, 2021 WL 2044470 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2021) brief quality flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · medium confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

0 of 1 located

Brief-quality observations

• Case name in the brief looks like a typo of the official record.

Why we flagged this

• At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.

View matched docket on CourtListener → View opinion on GovInfo →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“has a right to put on a defense of [his] choosing, including an argument that the Government has failed to meet its burden of proof.” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

22 United States v. Johnson, 62 F.3d 849 (6th Cir. 1995) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Lee Erwin Johnson”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

23 United States v. Markevich, 775 F. App'x 287 (9th Cir. 2019) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · low confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 2 of 2 located

How we matched this

We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.

View matched docket on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“violated the defendants' Confrontation Clause rights by severely restricting the defendants' ability to probe [government witness] on cross-examination” Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.

“central subject of [witness]'s testimony [regarding materiality of defendant's misrepresentations]” Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.

24 United States v. Lopez, 4 F.4th 706 (9th Cir. 2021) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Wilfredo Lopez”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

25 United States v. McLister, 608 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1979) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Frank C. McLister”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

26 United States v. Medearis, 380 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2004) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Cody Cheyenne Medearis”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

27 United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2007) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Mitchell”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

28 United States v. Monks, 774 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1985) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Charles Eugene Monks, United States of America v. Gary A. Holt”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“the district court must first find that sufficient foundational facts have been introduced for the jury reasonably to conclude that the defendant did actually hear, understand and accede to the statement” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

29 United States v. Musaibli, 647 F. Supp. 3d 571 (E.D. Mich. 2022) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · medium confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.

View matched docket on CourtListener → View opinion on GovInfo →

30 United States v. Perry, 857 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1988) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Franklyn G. Perry”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“'opened the door' to detailed crossexamination when he attempted to 'explain away' those convictions by offering his own version of the underlying facts.” Found — minor punctuation or spacing differences.

31 United States v. Pulley, 922 F.2d 1283 (6th Cir. 1991) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Bobby D. Pulley”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“A” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

32 United States v. Safavian, 233 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2005) flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

0 of 2 located

Why we flagged this

• At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Safavian”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“'manifested an adoption or belief' in the truth of the statements” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

“[did] not clearly demonstrate his adoption of the contents.” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

33 United States v. Sanchez-Estrada, 394 F. App'x 428 (9th Cir. 2010) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Edgar Sanchez-Estrada”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

34 United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2007) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Sine”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

35 United States v. Solorio-Soto, 300 F. App'x 487 (9th Cir. 2008) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Solorio-Soto”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“prevented [defendant] from arguing” Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.

36 United States v. Torres, 794 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2015) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Alfonso Torres”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

37 United States v. Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2014) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Eric Vallejos”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

38 United States v. Velazquez, 1 F.4th 1132 (9th Cir. 2021) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Alfred Velazquez”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

39 United States v. Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 1995) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 4 of 4 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Fernando Vizcarra-Martinez”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“necessary. . . in order to permit the prosecutor to offer a coherent and comprehensible story regarding the commission of the crime.” Found — the brief joined separate passages with ellipses (Bluebook R. 5.3).

“single criminal transaction.” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“coherent and comprehensible story regarding the commission of the crime.” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“There must be a sufficient contextual or substantive connection between the proffered evidence and the alleged crime to justify exempting the evidence from the strictures of Rule 404(b).” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

40 United States v. Wells, 879 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2018) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. James Wells”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“whether the evidence bears directly on the charged crime.” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

41 United States v. Williams, 989 F.2d 1061 (9th Cir. 1993) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Jearold Kenneth Williams, United States of America v. George Allen”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

42 State v. Goode, 300 N.C. 726, 268 S.E.2d 82 (1980) flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

1 of 2 located

Why we flagged this

• At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “State v. Goode”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“[I]t is generally recognized, by Bench and Bar alike, that the decision whether a defendant in a criminal case will present evidence or will testify in his own behalf is a matter of paramount importance.” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“[s]uch matters can and should be discussed generally prior to trial, . . . the actual decision whether to put on a defense cannot intelligently be made until the close of the State's evidence.” The brief's quote matches 83% of the cited opinion, but in separate passages — not as one continuous quote. This typically means the brief either paraphrased inside the quotation marks (Bluebook Rule 5.2 requires brackets for any substitution) or silently omitted intervening text (Bluebook Rule 5.3 requires “. . .” for omissions). Compare the brief's quotation against the cited opinion.

What diverges

brief: … trial,... the actual decision whether to put on a defense cannot intelligently be made …

opinion: … trial,... the actual decision cannot intelligently be made …

43 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

44 Fed. R. Evid. 106 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“If a party introduces all or part of a statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part-or any other statement-that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time. The adverse party may do so over a hearsay objection.” Found word-for-word in the source text.

45 Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2) clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

48 id. flagged

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

2 of 3 located

Why we flagged this

• At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“documents and objects” Found word-for-word in the source text.

“intends to use them in the defendant's case-in-chief at trial.” The brief's quote matches 72% of the cited source text, but in separate passages — not as one continuous quote. This typically means the brief either paraphrased inside the quotation marks (Bluebook Rule 5.2 requires brackets for any substitution) or silently omitted intervening text (Bluebook Rule 5.3 requires “. . .” for omissions). Compare the brief's quotation against the cited source text.

What diverges

brief: …intends to use them in the defendants case-in-c…

opinion: …nds to use the item in the defendants case-in-c…

“obtained from or belongs to the defendant,” Found word-for-word in the source text.

49 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

50 Rule 16 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

51 Fed. R. Crim. P. 26 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

52 Fed. R. Evid. 401 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

53 Fed. R. Evid. 402 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

54 Fed. R. Evid. 403 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

55 Fed. R. Evid. 404 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

56 Fed. R. Evid. 405 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

57 Fed. R. Evid. 615 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

58 Fed. R. Evid. 801 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

59 Fed. R. Evid. 802 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

60 Fed. R. Evid. 803 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

61 Fed. R. Evid. 807 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

62 Rule 801(a) clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

Pass· 2 of 2 located

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“a person's oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.” Found word-for-word in the source text.

“assertion,” Found word-for-word in the source text.

63 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(B) clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“the party manifested that it adopted or believed [the statement] to be true.” Found word-for-word in the source text.

64 Fed. R. Evid. 803(3) clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

65 Fed. R. Evid. 807(a) clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

66 Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

67 Fed. R. Evid. 803(7) clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

68 Rule 404(b) clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

69 Fed. R. Evid. 615(c) clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

70 Sixth Amendment clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A

How we matched this

Constitutional citation.

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

71 Fifth Amendment clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A

How we matched this

Constitutional citation.

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →