The following excerpt is from United States v. Hendricks, No. 15-2525-cr (2nd Cir. 2019):
37. We note that "'abuse of discretion' is a nonpejorative term of art; it implies no misconduct on the part of the district court." United States v. Bove, 888 F.3d 606, 607 n.1 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing In re City of New York, 607 F.3d 923, 943 n.21 (2d Cir. 2010)). The term merely describes circumstances in which a district court "base[s] its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or render[s] a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marksand citation omitted).
38. Cf. United States v. Copple, 24 F.3d 535, 545-46 (3d Cir. 1994) (victim testimony regarding financial losses in criminal fraud trial was proper insofar as it was relevant to prove specific intent, but further victim impact testimony had little probative value and was unfairly prejudicial).
39. 18 U.S.C. 2113(a).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.