Hunt v. Cromartie, 524 U.S. 980 (1998). · Go Syfert
Hunt v. Cromartie, 524 U.S. 980 (1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the acumen gained by the trial judge in presiding over the course of the trial makes rule 33 motions directed to the same judge particularly suitable for ruling without a hearing”
36 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Moore v. Quarterman (txwd, 2007-12-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Moore v. Quarterman
W.D. Tex. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Castillo v. Johnson, 141 F.3d 218, 223 (5th Cir.1998) (“Under Brady , the prosecution has no obligation to produce evidence or information already known to the defendant, or that could be obtained through the defendant’s exercise of diligence.”), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 979 , 119 S.Ct. 28 , 141 L.Ed.2d 788 (1998); Brown v. Cain, 104 F.3d 744, 750 (5th Cir.l997)(“The prosecution had no obligation under Brady to produce for Brown evidence or information already known to him, or that he could have obtained from other sources by exercising reasonable diligence.”), cer t. denied, 520 U…
cited Cited "see" United States v. Causey
S.D. Tex. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Castillo v. Johnson, 141 F.3d 218, 223 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 979 , 119 S.Ct. 28 , 141 L.Ed.2d 788 (1998).
discussed Cited "see" Woods v. Anderson
S.D. Ind. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). 5 “The Payne Court recognized that only where such evidence or argument is unfairly prejudicial may a court prevent its use through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Castillo v. Johnson, 141 F.3d 218, 224 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 979 , 119 S.Ct. 28 , 141 L.Ed.2d 788 (1998).
cited Cited "see" Cherrix v. Commonwealth
Va. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Castillo v. Johnson, 141 F.3d 218, 223 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 119 S.Ct. 28 (1998) (prosecution has no obligation to produce information already known to defense).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bobby James Moore v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
5th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Castillo v. Johnson, 141 F.3d 218 , 220 n. 1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 28 , 141 L.Ed.2d 788 (1998); Cannon v. Johnson, 134 F.3d 683, 685 (5th Cir.1998); De La Cruz v. Johnson, 134 F.3d 299, 301 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2352 , 141 L.Ed.2d 721 (1998); Hogue v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 466 , 469 n. 1 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1297 , 140 L.Ed.2d 334 (1998); Green v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 1115, 1119 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Moore v. Johnson
5th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Castillo v. Johnson, 141 F.3d 218 , 220 n. 1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,- U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 28 , 141 L.Ed.2d 788 (1998); Cannon v. Johnson, 134 F.3d 683, 685 (5th Cir.1998); De La Cruz v. Johnson, 134 F.3d 299, 301 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2352 , 141 L.Ed.2d 721 (1998); Hogue v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 466 , 469 n. 1 (5th Cir.1997), ce rt. denied, 523 U.S. 1014 , 118 S.Ct. 1297 , 140 L.Ed.2d 334 (1998); Green v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 1115, 1119 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Dunlap
Colo. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
Bartholomew, 516 U.S. at 5 , 116 S.Ct. 7 ; see also Castilla v. Johnson, 141 F.3d 218, 221 (5th Cir.) (holding that the prosecution did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to due process or to present a defense in a capital murder case by withholding polygraph evidence that was per se inadmissible under Texas law), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 119 S.Ct. 28 , 141 L.Ed.2d 788 (1998).
Hunt, Governor of North Carolina
v.
Cromartie
No. 98-85.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Sep 29, 1998.
524 U.S. 980

Appeal from D. C. E. D. N. C. Probable jurisdiction noted. Brief of appellants is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 8 p.m., Tuesday, November 10, 1998. Brief of appellees is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Tuesday, December 29, 1998. This Court’s Pule 29.2 does not apply.