green
Positive treatment
23.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hawkins
Cf. United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1096 (7th Cir.1993) (explaining, in case construing the Hobbs Act, that it is no defense to taking a bribe to fix a case that a judgment was compelled or supported by law).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sinisa Muratovic
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See id. § 1951(b)(3); United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1098 (7th Cir.1993) (citing Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 215 , 80 S.Ct. 270 , 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ellis, Susan B.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We look to whether: (1) the evidence is directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged, (2) the evidence shows that the other act is similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue, (3) the evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the similar act, and (4) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 8 No. 07-2643 United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1099 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Zapat…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ellis
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1099 (7th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Zapata, 871 F.2d 616, 620 (7th Cir.1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bahman Mansoori, Mark Cox, Mohammad Mansoori, Kenneth Choice, and Terry Young
See, e.g., United States v. Denberg, 212 F.3d 987, 994 (7th Cir.2000) (evidence of prior drug trafficking admissible to show, inter alia, defendant’s ability to traffic in significant quantities of narcotics); United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1099 (7th Cir.1993) (evidence of defendant’s prior payments to judge relevant “because it demonstrated he had the ability, willingness, and chutzpah to bribe a judge”), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1071 , 114 S.Ct. 877 , 127 L.Ed.2d 74 (1994); United States v. Chaverra-Cardona, 879 F.2d 1551, 1555 (7th Cir.1989) (evidence of defendant’s financ…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mansoori, Bahman
See, e.g., United States v. Denberg, 212 F.3d 987, 994 (7th Cir. 2000) (evidence of prior drug trafficking admissible to show, inter alia, defendant’s ability to traffic in significant quantities of narcotics); United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1099 (7th Cir. 1993) (evidence of defendant’s prior payments to judge relevant “because it demonstrated he had the ability, willingness, and chutzpah to bribe a judge”), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1071 , 114 S. Ct. 877 (1994); United States v. Chaverra-Cardona, 879 F.2d 1551, 1555 (7th Cir. 1989) (evidence of defendant’s finances was probat…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert Bailey
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
A connection with interstate commerce is a jurisdictional requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 , see United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1097-98 (7th Cir.1993), and if the government failed to present sufficient evidence of such a connection, Bailey’s conviction must be overturned.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bailey, Robert
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
A connection with interstate commerce is a jurisdictional requirement of 18 U.S.C. sec. 1951 , see United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1097-98 (7th Cir. 1993), and if the government failed to present sufficient evidence of such a connection, Bailey’s conviction must be overturned.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aleman v. Toomin
CONCLUSION 29 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's denial of Aleman's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 1 The State has chosen not to proceed against Aleman on the Reitinger murder charge 2 Street taxes are monies paid to criminal organizations in exchange for protection of the "taxpayer's" illegal operations from either law enforcement interference or mob takeover 3 For a further discussion of Cooley's history of bribing public officials, see United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1093 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1071 , 114 S.Ct. 877 , 127 L.Ed.2d 74 (199…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aleman v. Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County
For a further discussion of Cooley’s history of bribing public officials, see United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1093 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1071 , 114 S.Ct. 877 , 127 L.Ed.2d 74 (1994). .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,670 United States of America v. Mark Allen Knox and Armando Herman Carreiro
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1095 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 877 , 127 L.Ed.2d 74 (1994); United States v. Nesbitt, 852 F.2d 1502, 1509 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1015 , 109 S.Ct. 808 , 102 L.Ed.2d 798 (1989); United States v. Redwine, 715 F.2d 315, 319 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1216 , 104 S.Ct. 2661 , 81 L.Ed.2d 367 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. London
Cf. United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1097 (7th Cir.1993) ("Since the government was free to release this information to a grand jury anyway under the [authorization for the offenses listed in the Title III order], it is difficult to see how the defendants were harmed when the same facts were presented in the context of different offenses."), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 515 , 130 L.Ed.2d 421 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. London
(2×)
Cf. United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1097 (7th Cir.1993) (“Since the government was free to release this information to a grand jury anyway under the [authorization for the offenses listed in the Title III order], it is difficult to see how the defendants were harmed when the same facts were presented in the context of different offenses.”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 515 , 130 L.Ed.2d 421 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. London
Cf. United States v. Shields, ___ _____________ _______ 999 F.2d 1090, 1097 (7th Cir. 1993) ("Since the government was free to release this information to a grand jury anyway under the [authorization for the offenses listed in the Title III order], it is difficult to see how the defendants were harmed when the same facts were presented in the context of different offenses."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 515 (1994). _____ ______ We need not reach the merits of this argument, however, because we conclude that the district judge who issued the initial interception orders impliedly and permissibly au…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Deborah Johnson-Dix, Carlos Meyers, Darrell Walton, Carl A. Dawson, Jr., and Garrett Thompson
(Tr. at 1109.) Cf. United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1099-1100 (7th Cir.1993) (defendant judge not unduly prejudiced by Rule 404(b) evidence that his code-fendant had earlier bribed another judge when both defendants were asserting that co-defendant had never passed the bribe in this case on to the judge), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 877 , 127 L.Ed.2d 74 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bernard J. Morgano, Dominick Palermo, Nicholas Guzzino, Peter Petros, Sam Nuzzo, Jr. And Samuel Glorioso
United States v. Boulahanis, 677 F.2d 586, 590 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1016 , 103 S.Ct. 375 , 74 L.Ed.2d 509 (1982) (interstate commerce re *1372 quirement satisfied because social club paying extortion had less funds from which to purchase usual $68 per month of out-of-state coffee); United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1098 (7th Cir.1993) (lawyers’ paying of bribes satisfied interstate commerce requirement because depleted money otherwise available to purchase law supplies from outside state); United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1618 , 1530-31 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mounts
The test for admitting past act evidence under Rule 404(b) is whether: 28 (1) the evidence is directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged, (2) the evidence shows that the other act is similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue, (3) the evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the similar act, and (4) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 29 United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1099 (7th …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mounts
United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1099 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 877 , 127 L.Ed.2d 74 (1994), (citing United States v. Zapata, 871 F.2d 616, 620 (7th Cir.1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ronald B. Evans
United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1099 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 877 , 127 L.Ed.2d 74 (1994); see also United States v. Kreiser, 15 F.3d 635, 640 (7th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Li
United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1099 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 877 , 127 L.Ed.2d 74 (1994) (quoting United States v. Zapata, 871 F.2d 616, 620 (7th Cir.1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Anthony Kreiser
Id. (quoting United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1099 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 877 , 127 L.Ed.2d 74 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alex Janows & Company, and Sherwin Janows
Implicit in the defendant’s argument is an acknowledgment of the basic trial strategy to impeach one’s own witness “to lessen the blow of cross-examination.” United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1100 (7th Cir.1993); Davis, 838 F.2d at 918 ; see also United States v. Mealy, 851 F.2d 890, 899 (7th Cir.1988) (“The well-established rule in this circuit is that, on direct examination, the prosecutor may elicit testimony regarding the witness’ plea agreement and actually introduce the plea agreement into evidence.”) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. McDonough
See United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1096 (7th Cir.1993) (observing, in a judicial bribery case, that issuing a legally correct judgment is not a defense to a bribery charge and that because a party with a good case still “buys certainty,” a legally correct decision conveys no useful information about the likelihood of a bribe).
cited
Cited "see"
Shields v. Judges' Retirement System
See United States v. Shields , 999 F.2d 1090 (7th Cir. 1993).
cited
Cited "see"
Shields v. JUDGES'RET. SYSTEM OF ILLINOIS
See United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090 (7th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Shields v. Judges' Retirement System
(2×)
See United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090 (7th Cir. 1993).
cited
Cited "see"
Shields v. Judges' Retirement System
See United States v. Shields , 999 F.2d 1090 (7th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. O'Neill
See United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1097 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, Shields v. United States, 510 U.S. 1071 , 114 S.Ct. 877 , 127 L.Ed.2d 74 (1994). 4 *1129 Therefore, pursuant to Seventh Circuit precedent, the government must seek subsequent authorization to add the additional offenses charged in the first indictment to the wiretap order, dismiss the first indictment against the defendants, and pursue a superseding indictment before a second and uninfected grand jury.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Timothy Whiteagle
See, e.g., United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1099 (7th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Tuchow, 768 F.2d 855, 864 (7th Cir.1985)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dimasi
See, e.g., United States v. Shields, 999 F.2d 1090, 1093-96 (7th Cir.1993) (affirming conviction for extortion).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William T. WULIGER, Defendant-Appellant
v.
William T. WULIGER, Defendant-Appellant
92-3061.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Aug 11, 1993.
Kennedy, Milburn, Wellford.
Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion
Prior Report: 981 F.2d 1497.
Before: KENNEDY and MILBURN, Circuit Judges; and WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Lead Opinion
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing filed by the appellee,
It is ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be, and it hereby is, DENIED.
Concurrence
WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring:
As indicated in my initial separate opinion, I find this to be a very close case. United States v. Chan Chun-Yin, 958 F.2d 440 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3010, 120 L.Ed.2d 884 (1992), is a basis for finding that the omission in the jury instruction may be harmless error. I find an insufficient basis to dissent from denial of a rehearing, but the court may deem it a proper candidate for rehearing en banc, because this controversy involves a statute and an interesting issue not previously considered by the Sixth Circuit.
This court “should not exercise [its] discretion [to correct the forfeited error] unless the error ‘seriously affect [s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 392, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)).” United States v. Olano & Gray, - U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1776, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (emphasis added). I am not sure that the error in jury instruction did seriously or necessarily affect the fairness and integrity of the proceedings against Wul-iger, an experienced trial counsel.