Opinion¶
Mathews v. United States, 4. U. S. 5. (1988). Opinion.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Kettle logic
- Legal defense — the scattered "not at the scene / didn't strike / self-defense" pile; inconsistency by itself is not the defect, since a federal criminal defendant who denies committing the offense may still be entitled to an instruction on a defense that presupposes he did it, so what marks the pile as kettle logic is the joint assertion of the accounts as all true at once
This sourceSupplies the point that inconsistency between defenses is not by itself disqualifying in federal criminal practice: "[e]ven if the defendant denies one or more elements of the crime, he is entitled to an entrapment instruction whenever there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment" — a defense that presupposes the act the defendant denies. It is a holding about entitlement to a jury instruction in federal court, not a general rule that any two defenses may be advanced together, and it carries the Applied / In Practice section's narrower point that the criminal side's tolerance of inconsistent defenses rests on case law rather than on a pleading rule.
- Legal defense — the scattered "not at the scene / didn't strike / self-defense" pile; inconsistency by itself is not the defect, since a federal criminal defendant who denies committing the offense may still be entitled to an instruction on a defense that presupposes he did it, so what marks the pile as kettle logic is the joint assertion of the accounts as all true at once
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:c647492ae051 · see in the full table