Bailey v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• noting that these elements must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence
• though not expressly rejecting the temporal admissibility requirement, it expresses "uneasiness” with the Quinto opinion
• generally statements of a co-defendant that do not name the defendant do not violate Bruton
• a dismissed juvenile charge may be considered in sentencing following a subsequent criminal conviction
• conversations relating to collection of money are admissible
• "In order for a judge to be well advised of all the facts surrounding the defendant's background ... it is imperative that he be allowed to draw upon a wealth of information concerning the defendant's background, from his date of birth up to and including the moment of sentencing."