Tran Van Khiem v. United States

holding that a reference to a capital-murder defendant's parole officer did not rise to the level of plain error | Finding that defendant's attack on the chain of custody goes to the weight of the chemist's testimony rather than the admissibility. | "[w]hile th[e] failure [to object] does not preclude our review [in capital cases], it does weigh against any claim of prejudice" | "We do not find Alabama's method of allocating the burdens of proof unconstitutional." | wherein the appellant had argued that the trial court erred in its sentencing order in stating that "the court holds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances and compel the court to affix punishment at death" | broad and general statements of law in judicial opinions must be read in the context of the facts before the court, and cannot be uncritically transposed to different factual circumstances | broad and general statements of law in judicial opinions must be read in the context of the facts before the court, and cannot be uncritically transposed to different factual circumstances | no plain error when witness said that defendant had a parole officer