Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
United States v. Estrada | 430 F.3d 606 (2005)
Members of a crime organization turn on each other, and the defendants turn to the rules of evidence to impeach members’ testimony using prior convictions in United States versus Estrada.
Ricardo Rosario and Felix DeJesus worked in Frank Estrada’s crime organization. Rosario, DeJesus, and many other associates were arrested. Rosario and DeJesus were charged with federal drug crimes.
At trial, the defense tried to impeach some witnesses with previous convictions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence six oh nine A one. The court didn’t let the attorney reveal the names of the crimes. Instead, the court instructed defense counsel to ask witnesses whether they had any felony convictions.
One witness, Ismael Padilla, had shoplifted and received larceny convictions. The defense argued that Padilla’s crimes involved dishonesty. The trial judge held that the larceny convictions didn’t involve dishonesty, so the convictions could only be used if subpart A one applied. Rosario and DeJesus were convicted and appealed to the Second Circuit, claiming the court made errors at trial, including refusing to admit the specific names of the offenses.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
