green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.8 score
“the witnesses need not be sequestered during pretrial proceedings, or after their testimony; they can speak freely to anybody and if they do so, may be cross-examined with respect thereto insofar as may relate to bias or credibility.”
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 39 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Oseguera Gonzalez
the witnesses need not be sequestered during pretrial proceedings, or after their testimony; they can speak freely to anybody and if they do so, may be cross-examined with respect thereto insofar as may relate to bias or credibility.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dotsenko v. Joseph
when a sentence is within , a claim of 10 excessive punishment does not present a constitutional question necessary for habeas corpus reversal.
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas Raynard James v. Detective Kevin Conley, et al.
See May v. Hoke, 711 F. Supp. 703, 712 (E.D.N.Y. 1988), aff’d, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir. 1989) (finding no reasonable probability that collateral impeachment of an investigating police officer would have changed the verdict); see also Pltff.’s Stmt. ¶ 65 (“The only evidence of guilt introduced by the State at [Plaintiff’s] trial was Dorothy Walton’s pretrial and in-court identification of [Plaintiff] and Larry Miller’s pretrial identification of a photo of [Plaintiff].”).
discussed
Cited "see"
McFadden v. Graham
See White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (“No federal constitutional issue is presented where the sentence is within the range prescribed by state law.”) (citing Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F. Supp. 146 (E.D.N.Y. 1988), aff’d mem., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir. 1989)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Seda v. Conway
See White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992) (“No federal constitutional issue is presented where, as here, the sentence is within the range prescribed by state law.”) (citing Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd mem., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Simms v. LaClair
See White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992) (“No federal constitutional issue is presented where, as here, the sentence is within the range prescribed by state law.”) (citing Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd mem., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989)).
cited
Cited "see"
Mohsin v. Ebert
May 16, 2001); see Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146, 151 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Farid v. Bouey
See White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992) (citing Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd mem., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989)); see also Brown v. Donnelly, 371 F.Supp.2d 332, 343-44 (W.D.N.Y.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Larweth v. Conway
See White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992) (“No federal constitutional issue is presented where, as here, the sentence is within the range prescribed by state law.”) (citing Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd mem., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989)); see also Fielding v. LeFevre, 548 F.2d 1102 , 1108 & n. 11 (2d Cir.1977); Williams v. Duckworth, 738 F.2d 828 (7th Cir.1984) (“As a general rule, a federal court will not review state sentencing determinations that fall within statutory limits.”) (citing Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 6…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Santiago
See United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1132 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff 'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 , 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989); United States v. Persico, 621 F.Supp. 842, 868 (S.D.N.Y.1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Santana v. Filion
See Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146, 152 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Canty
See United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1132 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Strawberry
See United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1133 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff 'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 , 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Cutolo
See United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1133 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 , 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Giraldo
See United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1135-36 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 , 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Martinez
See United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1144 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 , 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989); see also United States v. Taylor, 707 F.Supp. 696, 702 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (finding that a request for a list of physical evidence seized from the defendant “or any other person, place or vehicle relevant to the charges” falls within the scope of Rule 16(a)(1)(C)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. All Right, Title & Interest in Five Parcels of Real Property
See U.S. v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1097 (2d Cir.1987), af f'd without op., 875 F.2d 857 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Singleton
See United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1090 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (stating “[n]arcotics conspiracies are' the very paradigm of the continuing enterprises for which courts have relaxed the temporal requirements of non-staleness”), aff'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gerard Wagner, Michael Canale Tammie Canale Thomas Brewer Donald Howard Shawna O'Leary Leo Talback Arthur Villa and David Keays
See United States v. Rowell, 903 F.2d 899, 903 (2d Cir.1990) (“Marcotíes conspiracies are the very paradigm of the continuing enterprises for which the courts have relaxed the temporal requirements of non-staleness”) (quoting United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1090 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd mem., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 , 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ferrara
See United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1108, 1113 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (applying Franks concerning issues regarding probable cause and exhaustion of alternative means of investigation), aff’d, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 , 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989); United States v. Tufaro, 593 F.Supp. 476, 485-86 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (applying Franks to omission of allegedly material fact concerning probable cause), aff’d, 762 F.2d 991 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 826 , 106 S.Ct. 84 , 85, 88 L.Ed.2d 69 (1985); United States v. Ramirez, 602 F.Supp. 783, 788-89 (S.D.N.Y.19…
discussed
Cited "see"
Aponte v. Scully
Jenkins v. Bara, 663 F.Supp. 891, 899 (E.D.N.Y.1987); see Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146, 150 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff’d without opinion, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 117 , 107 L.Ed.2d 79 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Roybal
See, e.g., United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. at 1143-44 (granting defendant’s motion to compel all “telephone and/or other public or private communications records that the Government intends to use at trial”), aff'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989); United States v. Shakur, 543 F.Supp. 1059, 1061 (S.D.N.Y.1982), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cunningham v. Conway
For the purpose of habeas review, “[n]o federal constitutional issue is presented where, as here, the sentence is within the range prescribed by state law.” White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992); see also Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146, 152 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kahale
Notably, the “[acquisition of evidentiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars.” United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir.1990) (upholding denial of bill of particulars where requests amounted to “ill-disguised attempts at general pre-trial discovery”) (internal quotation omitted); see also United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1123 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd without op. 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 , 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989) (noting courts’ refusals “to treat a bill of par *371 ticulars as a general investigative tool fo…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
May v. Donelli
See Fielding v. LeFevre, 548 F.2d 1102, 1109 (2d Cir.1977) (rejecting habeas petitioner’s claim that judge improperly failed to credit psychiatric reports concerning the possibility of imprisonment upon his depression; no cognizable federal claim was raised since the evidence was offered to prove that the state judge abused his sentencing discretion) (citing Tovmsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741 , 68 S.Ct. 1252 , 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948)); see also White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir.1992) (“No federal constitutional issue is presented where, as here, the sentence is within the range pr…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Chalmers
Compare United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 233-34 (2d Cir.1990) (affirming denial) with Feola, 651 F.Supp. at 1131-34 (granting demand), aff'd without op., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Urso
Compare Torres, 901 F.2d at 233-34 (affirming denial of demand for bill of particulars requiring “identification of those other persons ‘known and unknown’ ”) with Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1131-34 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (granting demand for bill of particulars specifying “the names of all persons whom the Government will claim at trial were co-conspirators”), aff'd without op., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Coffey
See also United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1132 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (“a bill of particulars [in not] a general investigative tool for the defense, or as a device to compel disclosure of the Government’s evidence or its legal theory prior to trial”), aff’d, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 , 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989); United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F.Supp.2d 225, 233 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (stating that, in assessing the need for a bill of particulars, “the court must examine the totality of the information available to the defendant — through the indict…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Taylor v. Sabourin
See, e.g., Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146, 150 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989) (“Generally, erroneous evidentia-ry rulings by a state trial court do not constitute a basis upon which a writ of habeas corpus can be issued.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Nachamie
Compare United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 233-34 (2d Cir.1990) (affirming denial of demand for bill of particulars requiring “identiffication] of those other persons ‘known and unknown’ ”) with United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1131-34 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (granting demand for bill of particulars specifying “the names of all persons whom the Government will claim at trial were co-conspirators”), affd without op., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Benjamin
See United States v. Morales, 788 F.2d 883, 885-86 (2d Cir.1986)(pre-arrest statement against penal interest, although inadmissible at trial as evidence in chief, nevertheless was proper basis for probable cause to arrest); see also United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1093 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 , 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989)(observing that admissions against penal interest have been held sufficient to establish probable cause for search warrant).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Murgas
See, e.g., United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1132-33 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989) (defendants in conspiracy case need not know the means by which it is claimed they performed overt acts; details as to how and when the conspiracy was formed, or when each participant entered the conspiracy; whether a particular defendant was present at alleged meeting in furtherance of the conspiracy; and the locations which the conspirators are alleged to have violated the statute).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
DeFeo v. Artuz
See Bellavia v. Fogg, 613 F.2d 369, 372-74 (2d Cir.1979); Briecke v. New York, 936 F.Supp. 78, 85 (E.D.N.Y.1996); see also Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146, 152 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (“When a sentence is within [the range prescribed by law], a claim of excessive punishment does not present a constitutional question necessary for habeas corpus reversal.”), affd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 837 , 110 S.Ct. 117 , 107 L.Ed.2d 79 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Walker
A bill of particulars serves to “apprise a defendant of the nature of the charges against him, so that he can adequately prepare a defense, avoid prejudicial surprise at trial, and plead double jeopardy in that or any subsequent related action.” United States v. Greater Syracuse Bd. of Realtors, Inc., 438 F.Supp. 376, 379 (N.D.N.Y.1977) (Munson, J.); see also United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1132 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1989) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
East Coast Novelty Co., Inc. v. City of New York
See also United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1127 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (deferring in limine motions to preclude prior convictions until trial “when the record has been more fully developed.”), aff'd without op., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.N.Y.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harrison v. Commonwealth
However, although a waiver, like a confession, made by an accused while insane is involuntary and inadmissible in evidence against him, see Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 309 (1963), “mere emotionalism, confusion, or depression do not dictate a finding of mental incompetence or insanity.” United States v. Rouco, 765 F.2d 983, 993 (11th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied 475 U.S. 1124 (1985); see also United States v. Feola, 651 F. Supp. 1068, 1119 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), aff’d, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.) (unpublished opinion), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Quinones v. Meachum
See also Underwood v. Kelly, 692 F.Supp. 146, 150-51 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff 'd mem., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 837 , 110 S.Ct. 117 , 107 L.Ed.2d 79 (1989) (no constitutional violation in admission of petitioner’s prior convictions); Vargas v. Hoke, 664 F.Supp. 808, 812 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (same conclusion with respect to admission of prior consistent statement); Jenkins v. Bara, 663 F.Supp. 891, 898-99 (E.D.N.Y.1987) (same conclusion with respect to admission of cocaine where petitioner questioned chain of custody).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jack Blakney
See, e.g., United States v. Montes-Cardenas, 746 F.2d 771, 776 (11th Cir.1984); see also United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1121 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (joinder proper where weapons and narcotics found during same search), aff'd mem., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Young & Rubicam, Inc.
Connery, Ruling at 2; see also, United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1133 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd without op., 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 110 , 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1984); Ma-tos-Peralta, 691 F.Supp. at 791 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
May
v.
Hoke (Robert)
v.
Hoke (Robert)
88-2520.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 13, 1989.
Published
Citer courts: District of Columbia (1) · E.D. New York (1)
May
v.
Hoke (Robert)
NO. 88-2520
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
APR 13, 1989
Appeal From: E.D.N.Y., 711 F.Supp. 703
1
AFFIRMED.