context: Moreover, Pando was not available for cross-examination concerning his assertion that he had been threatened. Herrera and similar cases cited by the defendant are simply inapposite.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 390 F.2d 244, 251
citation_a.parenthetical: when defense counsel pointed out inconsistency in witness's account, the witness was allowed to testify regarding a threat in order to explain the inconsistency
citation_a.sentence: See also United States v. Rubin, 591 F.2d 278, 283 (5th Cir.) (defendant sought to testify in court regarding statements made to him), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 864, 100 S.Ct. 133, 62 L.Ed.2d 87 (1979); United States v. Scandifia, 390 F.2d 244, 251 (2d Cir.1968) (when defense counsel pointed out inconsistency in witness’s account, the witness was allowed to testify regarding a threat in order to explain the inconsistency), vacated on other grounds, 394 U.S. 310, 89 S.Ct. 1163, 22 L.Ed.2d 297 (1969).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 783 F.2d 1091, 1098
citation_b.parenthetical: defendant sought to testify in court regarding a threat he had received
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., United States v. Wright, 783 F.2d 1091, 1098 (D.C.Cir.1986) (defendant sought to testify in court regarding a threat he had received).