SEBETICH

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (25 total)

• Gissendanner v. State, 570 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
  …in which courts have held that the trial court has broad discretion to decide whether a protective strategem, such as that requested by appellant, is necessary. See, e.g., United States v. Sebetich, 776 F. 2d 412, 420-21 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1017, 108 S.Ct. 725, 98 L.Ed.2d 673 (1988); United States v. Brown, 699 F. 2d 585, 593-94 (2d Cir.1983); United States ex rel. Clark v. Fike, 538 F. 2d 750, 755-56 (7th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1064, 97 S.Ct. 791, 50 L.Ed.2d 781 (1977). We concu…
• United States v. Stevens, 935 F.2d 1380 (3d Cir. 1991)
  …focus on particular characteristics of the eyewitness identification at issue and discuss how those characteristics call into question the reliability of the identification.” United States v. Sebetich, 776 F. 2d 412, 419 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1017, 108 S.Ct. 725, 98 L.Ed.2d 673 (1988). More specifically, as we held in Downing, a defendant who seeks the admission of expert testimony must make an on-the-record detailed proffer to the court, including an explanation of precisely how the expert’…
• United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1990)
  …s omitted). Because Gomez failed to make a Rule 403 objection below,2 we review the admission of the drug courier profile testimony for plain error. See Fed.R.Evid. 103(d); United States v. Morris, 827 F. 2d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1017, 108 S.Ct. 726, 98 L.Ed.2d 675 (1988). [*501] “A plain error is a highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights.” United States v. Yarbrough, 852 F. 2d 1522, 1537 (9th Cir.) (citing United States v. Bustillo, 789 F. 2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.19…