stating that whether to allow grand jury testimony of a recalcitrant witness at trial is a matter of discretion and that failure to recollect is considered an inconsistency for purposes of Rule 801(d)
Summary of this case from United States v. Darden94-4220, 94-4238, 94-4278.
March 11, 1996.
Appeal from N.D.Ohio.
Decisions without Published Opinions Affirmed
stating that whether to allow grand jury testimony of a recalcitrant witness at trial is a matter of discretion and that failure to recollect is considered an inconsistency for purposes of Rule 801(d)
Summary of this case from United States v. DardenIn Austin, the 25 year-old defendant lived at his parent's home, and argued that items obtained as a result of a search of his apartment located in the home should have been suppressed at trial.
Summary of this case from U.S. v. AndersonFull title:U.S. v. Austin
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Date published: Mar 11, 1996
The Court further notes that the Sixth Circuit has declined to follow the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit in…
United States v. DardenNone of this required a mistrial, nor is Lucas entitled to a new trial based upon Daniels' recalcitrance as a…