Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 22 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Andy Restrepo and Gustavo Bedoya Naranjo.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Andy Restrepo and Gustavo Bedoya Naranjo Anchor | green | “(1) several co-defendants are tried jointly, (2) one defendant's extrajudicial statement is used to implicate another defendant in the crime, and (3) the confessor does not take the stand and is thus not subject to cross-examination.” | 4 |
| 2 | United States v. Michael H. O'Keefe | green | “the government has the burden of proving the harmlessness of the breach.” | 3 |
| 3 | United States v. Jimmy Beaumont | green | “directly alludes to the complaining defendant.” | 3 |
| 4 | United States v. Gerald Elwood, A/K/A Nap, William Barnes, Jr. And Ernest Marrero | green | “generally bears sufficient indicia of reliability to be considered as evidence by the trial judge in making the factual determinations required by the guidelines.” | 3 |
| 5 | Hoskins v. United States | green | “defendant's statement directly incriminates his or her co-defendants without reference to other, admissible evidence.” | 3 |
| 6 | Martinez v. United States | green | “a defendant might suffer prejudice from a joint trial if essential exculpatory evidence that would be available to a defendant tried alone were unavailable in a joint trial,” | 3 |
| 7 | Martinez v. United States | green | “undisputed leader of the conspiracy” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.