green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
32.0 score
“manifest necessity' required a mistrial" when "the trial judge . . . was presented with a situation of no realistic alternative to a mistrial as a result of . . . the petitioner's insistence upon a twelve-person jury”
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 46 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
James Walter Cherry v. Director, State Board of Corrections
(2×)
manifest necessity' required a mistrial" when "the trial judge . . . was presented with a situation of no realistic alternative to a mistrial as a result of . . . the petitioner's insistence upon a twelve-person jury
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jamaica Heflin
Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a) specifies that a party’s objection to a ruling admitting evidence is preserved only if the party “timely objects or moves to strike” and “states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context.” “[A] defendant must object with that reasonable degree of specificity which would have adequately apprised the trial court of the true basis for his objection.” United States v. LeBlanc, 612 F.2d 1012, 1014 (6th Cir.1980) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 186 (5th Cir.1975)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
VANDERBILT MORTG. AND FINANCE, INC. v. Flores
United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jason Hawkins
(2×)
Indeed, a “defendant ‘must object with [a] reasonable degree of specificity which would have adequately apprised the trial court of the true basis for his objection.’” United States v. LeBlanc, 612 F.2d 1012, 1014 (6th Cir. 1980) (quoting United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 186 (5th Cir. 1975)); see also United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865, 871 (6th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Admissibility in Federal Court of Electronic Copies of Personnel Records
McLaughlin, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 1001.11[3], at 1001-51 & n.5 (2d ed. 2007) (“Wein- stein”) (“computer evidence is admissible if produced in the ordinary course of business, even if the underlying documents are routinely destroyed for business reasons”) (citing section 1732). 6 See, e.g., United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 187 (5th Cir. 1975) (computer printout of financial records admissible under section 1732); United States v. Teague, 445 F.2d 114, 119 (7th Cir. 1971) (photocopies of documents, shown to have been kept in regular course of business, admissible under…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Henry A. Bostic
(2×)
This statement indicated to the district court that the government's counsel wished to speak, but it did not inform the district court or defense counsel of the government's position regarding the downward-departure motion. 2 27 A party "must `object with that reasonable degree of specificity which would have adequately apprised the trial court of the true basis for his objection.'" United States v. LeBlanc, 612 F.2d 1012, 1014 (6th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 186 (5th Cir.1975)), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 849 , 101 S.Ct. 137 , 66 L.Ed.2d 60 (1980); see also Fed.R.Crim.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bostic
United States v. Breeding, 109 F.3d LeBlanc, 612 F.2d 1012, 1014 (6th Cir.) (quoting United 308, 310 (6th Cir. 1997); United States v. Hickey, 917 F.2d States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 186 (5th Cir. 1975)), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 849 (1980); see also Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Information Services v. Gottsegen
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
U.S. v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 185 (5th Cir. 1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Western American Specialized Transportation Services, Inc. v. Chibberton
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
U.S. v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 185 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ruddock v. JEFFERSON FIRE CIV. SERV. BD.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
U.S. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 185 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
S. Jackson & Son v. Aljoma Lumber
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
U.S. v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 185 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Florencia Y. Walker (92-3135) and Tanya M. Powell (92-3136)
(2×)
Counsel must “object with that reasonable degree of specificity which would have adequately apprised the trial court of the true basis for his objection.” United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 186 (5th Cir.1975) (quoted in United States v. LeBlanc, 612 F.2d 1012, 1014 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 849 , 101 S.Ct. 137 , 66 L.Ed.2d 60 (1980)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cole Oil & Tire Co., Inc. v. Davis
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
U.S. v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 185 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lino Catabran
See United States v. Russo, 480 F.2d 1228, 1239-40 (6th Cir.1973) (annual Blue Shield statistical run admissible in mail fraud case as business record; held not to be a summary), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1157 , 94 S.Ct. 915 , 39 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974); United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 187 (5th Cir.1975) (computer printout admissible in criminal prosecution if it meets business record requirements). 2 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jodi Glasser
Rosenberg v. Collins, 624 F.2d 659, 665 (5th Cir.1980) (citing United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir.1975)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Clyde Alvin Williford, Sr., Clyde Alvin Williford, Jr.
Objections must be made “with that reasonable degree of specificity which would have adequately apprised the trial court of the true basis for his objection.” United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 186 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
International Wood Processors v. Power Dry, Inc.
(XIII at 13-14.) The general policy of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and Rule 803(6) in particular, “favors the admission of evidence rather than its exclusion if it has any probative value at all,” In re Ollag Construction Equipment Corp., 665 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir.1981) (citation omitted), and the court has broad discretion in determining issues of admissibility, e.g., United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Astling
See United States v. Arteaga-Limones, 529 F.2d 1183, 1198-99 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 920 , 97 S.Ct. 315 , 50 L.Ed.2d 286 (1976); United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 185-86 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph F. \Joey\" Astling
See United States v. Arteaga-Limones, 529 F.2d 1183, 1198-99 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 920 , 97 S.Ct. 315 , 50 L.Ed.2d 286 (1976); United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 185-86 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Young Brothers, Inc., Contractors
United States v. Vela, 673 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir.1982); Rosenberg v. Collins, 624 F.2d 659, 665 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 187 (5th Cir.1975). *694 “Any person in a position to attest to the authenticity of certain records is competent to lay the foundation for the admissibility of the records; he need not have been the preparer of the record, nor must he personally attest to the accuracy of the information contained in the records.” Rosenberg, supra, 624 F.2d at 665.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Capital Marine Supply, Inc. v. M/v Roland Thomas, Ii, Etc., Westinghouse Credit Corporation v. M/v Roland Thomas, Ii, Etc., Leonard Prejean, in Personam
Rosenberg v. Collins, 624 F.2d 659, 665 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir.1975), rev'd. on other grounds, 425 U.S. 435 , 96 S.Ct. 1619 , 48 L.Ed.2d 71 (1976).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Capital Marine Supply, Inc. v. Thomas
Rosenberg v. Collins, 624 F.2d 659, 665 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir.1975), rev’d. on other grounds, 425 U.S. 435 , 96 S.Ct. 1619 , 48 L.Ed.2d 71 (1976).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Daniel R. Henneberry and William A. Youngerman
United States v. Reese, 561 F.2d 894 , 903 n. 18 (D.C.Cir.1977); United States v. Calvert, 523 F.2d 895, 911 (8th Cir.1975); United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dewey T. Nabors, Jr.
See United States v. Arteaga-Limones, 529 F.2d 1183, 1198-99 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 920 , 97 S.Ct. 315 , 50 L.Ed.2d 286 (1976); United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 185-86 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Carlos Manuel Parodi, United States of America v. Edwin Barton Conway, United States of America v. Robert Lee Laws
The mandate for specificity in the Rule imposes upon the objecting party the obligation to “object with that reasonable degree of specificity which would have adequately apprised the trial court of the true basis for his objection . ... ” United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 186 (5th Cir.1975); and would have “clearly stated the specific ground now asserted on appeal,” United States v. Maultasch, 596 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir.1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pacific Service Stations Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.
(Original emphasis.) Rosenberg v. Collins, 624 F.2d at 665 (quoting United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir. 1975)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ricardo \Ricky\" Vela"
United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 187 (5th Cir. 1975); Olympic Insurance Co. v. H.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tyrone Leblanc
In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.” In addition to the above Rule of Evidence, Rule 51, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, requires a defendant to make “known to the (trial) court the action which he desires the court to take or his objection to the action of the court and the grounds therefor.” In addition, case authority supports the proposition that a defendant must “object with that reasonable degree of specificity which would have adeq…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hancho C. Kim
United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455, 490 (5th Cir. 1978) (affirmed admission of business records, stating: “The trial court is vested with a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of the records, and its ruling may not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.”); United States v. Wigerman, 549 F.2d 1192, 1194 (8th Cir. 1977); Florida Canal Industries, Inc. v. Rambo, 537 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir. 1976) (affirmed exclusion of records, stating: “the trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of documents under the business records exception, and i…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cecil Dwayne Evans, Arnold Gene Tate, and Charles Edward Gent, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Fendley, supra at 184-85; United States v. Miller, 500 F.2d 751, 754 (5th Cir. 1974), rev’d on other grounds, 425 U.S. 435 , 96 S.Ct. 1619 , 48 L.Ed.2d 71 (1976); United States v. Middlebrooks, 431 F.2d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1009 , 91 S.Ct. 569 , 27 L.Ed.2d 622 (1971).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bronzie L. Carter
(4×)
Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Garcia, 531 F.2d 1303, 1307 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 941 , 97 S.Ct. 359 , 50 L.Ed.2d 311 (1976); United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 186 (5th Cir. 1975).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Monarch Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Genser
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Ct. *122 1969); Seattle v. Heath, 10 Wash. App. 949, 956 , 520 P. 2d 1392, 1396 (App. Ct. 1974); but see State v. Walker, 16 Wash. App. 637, 639 , 557 P. 2d 1330, 1332 (App. Ct. 1976); (3) under the Commonwealth Fund Act, [9] see United States v. Fendley, 522 F. 2d 181, 187 (5 Cir.1975); United States v. Liebert, 519 F. 2d 542, 547 (3 Cir.1975), cert. den. 423 U.S. 985 , 96 S.Ct. 392 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 301 (1975); United States v. Greenlee, 517 F. 2d 899, 902, 906 (3 Cir.1975), cert. den. 423 U.S. 985 , 96 S.Ct. 391 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 301 (1975); United States v. Russo, supra at 1239-1240; United States…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. William James Bibbs, Ivory Lee Wilson, and Roscoe Wilson
(2×)
Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Garcia, 531 F.2d 1303, 1307 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 941 , 97 S.Ct. 359 , 50 L.Ed.2d 311 (1976); United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 186 (5th Cir. 1975).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Monarch Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Genser
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Ct. 1969); Seattle v. Heath, 10 Wash. App. 949, 956 , 520 P. 2d 1392, 1396 (App. Ct. 1974); but see State v. Walker, 16 Wash. App. 637, 639 , 557 P. 2d 1330, 1332 (App. Ct. 1976); (3) under the Commonwealth Fund Act, 9 see United States v. Fendley, 522 F. 2d 181, 187 (5 Cir. 1975); United States v. Liebert, 519 F. 2d 542, 547 (3 Cir. 1975), cert. den. 423 U. S. 985 , 96 S. Ct. 392 , 46 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of the Complaint Florida Canal Industries, Inc., for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability as Owner of the Diesel Tug W.A.B. Official Number 251285 v. Charles Rambo as Administrator of the Estates of Sonia R. Hines, Deceased, and Aetna Insurance Company, Gulf Oil Corporation, for Exoneration From or Liability as Owner of the Barge Port Everglades v. Charles Rambo as Administrator of the Estates of Sonia R. Hines, Deceased, and Aetna Insurance Company
E. g., United States v. Middlebrooks, 431 F.2d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1009 , 91 S.Ct. 569 , 27 L.Ed.2d 622 (1971); United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir. 1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Florida Canal Industries, Inc. v. Rambo
E. g., United States v. Middlebrooks, 431 F.2d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1009 , 91 S.Ct. 569 , 27 L.Ed.2d 622 (1971); United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181,184 (5th Cir. 1975).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Demetrio Arteaga-Limones and Mike Lozano Cantu
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Nevertheless, United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 185-86 (5th Cir. 1975), precludes our review of appellant’s claim.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Dudnick
Accord United States v. Fendley, 522 F. 2d 181, 186-87 (5th Cir.1975) (to make computer records inadmissible, opponent must raise specific, supported objections); United States v. DeGeorgia, 420 F. 2d 889 , 893 n. 11 (9th Cir.1969) (mechanical accuracy of computer need not be shown to admit printouts unless defendant questions the mechanical accuracy of the computer).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Clement A. Abadie, Jr., and Raymond J. Palazzolo
See United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 186 (5th Cir.1975).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Peter v. Alexander, United States of America v. Peter v. Alexander
See United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 184-87 (5th Cir.1975).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Stanley Phillip Mack
See United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 185-86 (5th Cir. 1975).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Palm Investments of Pinellas County, Inc.
See United States v. Fendley, 5 Cir. 1975, 522 F.2d 181, 184 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael S. Foster
(2×)
See United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mary Cullar Brown and Edwin Richard Brown
(2×)
See United States v. Fendley, 5 Cir. 1975, 522 F.2d 181, 184 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William A. Croft
(2×)
See also United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181 , 187 (5th Cir.1975); United States v. Russo, 480 F.2d 1228, 1241 (6th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1157 , 94 S.Ct. 915 , 39 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974). .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kenneth Wayne Page
See e. g., United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181,184 (5th Cir. 1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gary L. JONES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
William A. ANDERSON, Sheriff, Etc., Et Al., Etc., Respondents-Appellees
v.
William A. ANDERSON, Sheriff, Etc., Et Al., Etc., Respondents-Appellees
74-3988.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 11, 1975.
522 F.2d 181
John Fleming, Augusta, Ga. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant., Richard Allen, Dist. Atty., Augusta, Ga., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., G. Thomas Davis, B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for respondents-appellees.
Bell, Thornberry, Morgan.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (2)
PER CURIAM:
The sole issue presented in this appeal from the denial of habeas relief to a state prisoner is whether there was a violation of appellant’s Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy in the state trial court. This issue was decided adversely to appellant by the Supreme Court of Georgia on his direct appeal in a comprehensive opinion on the subject. Jones v. State, 1974, 232 Ga. 324, 206 S.E.2d 481. The district court rendered a thorough opinion in denying relief. Jones v. Anderson, S.D.Ga. 1974, 404 F.Supp. 182. See also Smith v. State of Mississippi, 5 Cir., 1973, 478 F.2d 88.
After oral argument and our own consideration of the record and appertaining law, we find no error.
Affirmed.