Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Tenth Circuit Blog
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Tenth Circuit BlogCI's Testimony Not "Inherently Incredible"; Evidence Supported PWID Conviction
By Shari Allison
ADVERTISEMENTS
United States v. Garcia, ___ F.3d ___ , No. 08-5090 (10th Cir. 2010) Circumstantial evidence of defendant?s dealing in drugs on date charged, combined with testimony of a cooperator, sufficient to convict him of possession with intent of over 500 grams of meth. Defendant engaged in a drug transaction with a confidential informant a month earlier and admission of this evidence did not violate Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); Defendant frequented the house where the charged drugs were found in the relevant time period; and cooperator who lived in house where charged drugs were found testified drugs belonged to Defendant and cooperator was not inherently incredible. The opinion includes a discussion of what might be inherently incredible. Use of jury form not plain error, and did not improperly shift burden of proof to Defendant (the form failed to state that the government had the burden of proof and instead stated that ?we the jury ...continue to full postFull post as published by Tenth Circuit Blog on February 24, 2010 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Court Rejects "Reverse 404(b)" Testimony; Affirms "de facto" Career Offender Sentence
Supreme Court rules habeas reviews cannot consider non-record evidence
Interesting Discussion of Inconsistent Verdict In Importation/PWID Case
False Evidence: Fabrication, Subornation of and Use at Trial,
3d DCA: When will an appellate court reverse a probate judge on a pure fact question








