Inendino v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• holding that defendant was not prejudiced by the restrictions placed on his counsel's cross-examination of key government witness, where "[t]he jury was sufficiently apprised of other bases on which [the defendant's] credibility was vulnerable to attack"
• courts must assess “typical buyer exercising ordinary caution”; this standard excludes the “wholly indifferent” but includes “the ignorant and the credulous.”
• buyer of a “big ticket” item such as carpeting would ordinarily be expected to be more careful in buying than the impulse buyer of a relatively inexpensive item
• § 3575 does not create separate criminal charge
• three instances of confusion insufficient
• threes instances of confusion insufficient