Canadian Parkhill Pipe Stringing, Ltd. v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• holding that where “defendant did not request a continuance or in any way claim that he was unable adequately to prepare to meet the rebuttal testimony [it] further militates against a finding that he was prejudiced by it.”
• District Court Opinion by Weinstein, J., whose superb treatise on evidence similarly addresses the subject at 4 J. Weinstein, Evidence 803(24)[01] (1975
• where the Court noted that “[c]oncealment and falsity were bound together in the context” of that case
• especially Judge Weinstein’s opinion for the district court