Inendino v. United States

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