U.S. v. Lancaster

6 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Lancaster

    96 F.3d 734 (4th Cir. 1996)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding further inquiry into contents of police officer's disciplinary file because further inquiry would have been cumulative

    A divided panel of this court considered and rejected Appellants's contentions, thereby affirming their convictions. United States v. Lancaster, 78 F.3d 888 (4th Cir. 1996). Thereafter, however, a majority of the judges of this circuit voted to vacate the panel opinion and rehear the case en banc.

  2. U.S. v. Bonsu

    291 F. App'x 505 (4th Cir. 2008)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding the appellants could not establish that the challenged testimony was perjured where appellants "knew of the [witnesses'] inconsistent statements and chose to use them extensively at trial for impeachment purposes," stating, "As the trier of fact, the jury weighed the competing evidence and found the government's witnesses and evidence to be more credible."

    We also review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lancaster, 78 F.3d 888, 896 (4th Cir. 1996). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), has significantly changed our standard of review for district court sentences.

  3. U.S. v. Ferguson

    395 F. App'x 77 (4th Cir. 2010)   Cited 4 times

    Because the Government was wholly uninvolved in the partial destruction of Ferguson's letters, and did not act in bad faith, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the remaining pieces of the letters into evidence. See United States v. Lancaster, 78 F.3d 888, 896 (4th Cir. 1996) ("Decisions regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence are committed to the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion."). II. Ferguson's Coram Nobis Petition

  4. U.S. v. Carter

    300 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2002)   Cited 207 times
    Holding that " ยง 924(c) convictions do not require a conviction on the predicate drug trafficking offense" as long as there is "at least some showing by the government that a reasonable jury could have convicted on the predicate drug offense."

    We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Lancaster, 78 F.3d 888, 896 (4th Cir. 1996). McRae's argument is unpersuasive.

  5. U.S. v. Barber

    80 F.3d 964 (4th Cir. 1996)   Cited 32 times
    Recognizing that racial issues may become "inextricably bound up" with the trial when "race is an issue to be tried either as an element of the offense or a defense or where racial issues are connected with the resolution of relevant facts"

    Rainey v. Conerly, 973 F.2d 321, 325 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Evans, 917 F.2d 800, 806-09 (4th Cir. 1990). But cf. United States v. Lancaster, No. 95-5012 (4th Cir. March 20, 1996). To refuse to ask such a question denies the defendant "the benefit of a voir dire that will provide essential information so as to allow the intelligent exercise of jury challenges," whether for cause or peremptory. Rainey, 973 F.2d at 325 (quoting Evans, 917 F.2d at 809).

  6. Stamper v. State

    3:03CV362-MU-02 (W.D.N.C. Jul. 25, 2005)

    To be sure, it is well settled that "[d]ecisions regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence are committed to the sound discretion of the [trial] court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion." United States v. Lancaster, 78 F.3d 888, 896 (4th Cir. 1996). Accord United States v. Bostian, 59 F.3d 474, 480 (4th Cir. 1995).