Roldan-Zapata v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• precluding psychiatric testimony relating to premeditation and intent did not deny defendant due process
• convictions are to be upheld if any rational trier of fact could have found essential elements of crime beyond reasonable doubt
• coconspirator’s statement to witness was plainly relevant to show consciousness of guilt and admissible against all defen dants
• “the judge’s comments in front of the jury, even if at times stern or sarcastic, were appropriate responses to counsel’s improper questioning of witnesses, inappropriate requests and disrespectful gestures”