U.S. v. Connelly

2 Citing cases

  1. Byron v. Inst. for Envtl. Health, Inc.

    428 F. Supp. 3d 467 (W.D. Wash. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Id. Mr. Byron's conversation with Mr. Van Arsdale is not hearsay because it is not offered for its truth, but instead for its effect on the listener. U.S. v. Connelly , 395 F. App'x 407, 408 (9th Cir. 2010). Mr. Byron does not include his conversation with Mr. Van Arsdale to prove the validity of Mr. Van Arsdale's concerns, but rather to explain the events that informed his beliefs about IEH's alleged unlawful activity.

  2. United States v. Cedeno-Cedeno

    Case No.: 14cr3305 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2016)   Cited 2 times
    Discussing whether statement made regarding ship's registry triggered certain statutory consequences under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act

    Out-of-court statements introduced to show the effect on the listener are not hearsay. United States v. Payne, 944 F.2d 1458, 1472 (9th Cir. 1991); See also United States v Connelly, 395 Fed.App'x 407, 408 (9th Cir. 2010)(unpublished)("[b]ank and credit card fraud victim's statement regarding a warning she received from a local banker that a large check had been drawn in her name was not hearsay, where it was not offered for its truth; rather, it was offered to show the effect on the listener, victim, and explain why she went to the bank to investigate."). Here, Lt. Matthews awaited word from District 11 before boarding Defendants panga, and when he received the information that Columbia could neither confirm nor deny the panga's registration to that country, he took action and boarded the vessel.