299 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 1999)
Defendant challenged the prosecution's use of its peremptory strikes in jury selection, evidentiary rulings by the district court, and the district court's denial of a motion to withdraw made by her retained counsel.
- The court initially held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the race-neutral reasons offered by the prosecution for its jury selection strikes were credible, and that defendant failed to offer evidence to establish any pretext by the prosecution.
- The court then held that the testimony of the prosecution's drug valuation expert was properly admitted by the district court and did not violate defendant's confrontation rights because he relied on data of a type reasonably relied upon by drug valuation experts, and his testimony was subject to cross-examination by defendant, and that the prosecution's drug price list was properly excluded by the district court.
- The court finally held that it had no jurisdiction to review the denial of defendant's withdrawal motion.
The convictions were affirmed.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.