green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.5 score
“under bruton and its progeny, the admission of a statement made by a non-testifying codefendant violates the confrontation clause when that statement facially, expressly, clearly, or powerfully implicates the defendant”
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Taylor v. Hill
under bruton and its progeny, the admission of a statement made by a non-testifying codefendant violates the confrontation clause when that statement facially, expressly, clearly, or powerfully implicates the defendant
discussed
Cited "see"
Kumal Burton v. Paul Renico, Warden
See Mitzel v. Tate, 267 F.3d 524, 536 (6th Cir.2001), cert. de *779 nied, 535 U.S. 966 , 122 S.Ct. 1384 , 152 L.Ed.2d 375 (2002) (“[T]o warrant habeas, relief ■ [i.e., to state a constitutional due process claim] because of. incorrect jury instructions, Petitioner must show that the instructions, as a whole, were so infirm that they rendered the entire trial fundamentally unfair.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ricky D. Ross
See United States v. Angwin, 271 F.3d 786, 808-09 (9th Cir.2001) (finding sufficient evidence of dangerous conduct to support an upward adjustment of the defendant’s sentence), ce rt. denied, 535 U.S. 966 , 122 S.Ct. 1385 , 152 L.Ed.2d 375 (2002); United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir.2000) (upholding the factual determinations underlying the upward adjustment of the defendant’s base offense level for his leadership role in the offense).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Guerra-Garcia
See United States v. Angwin, 271 F.3d 786, 805 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 966 , 122 S.Ct. 1385 , 152 L.Ed.2d 375 (2002); Federal Jury Practice & Instructions, § 51B.06 (1999 Supplement).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gomez-Garcia
See United States v. Angwin, 271 F.3d 786, 808 (9th Cir.2001) (as amended), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 966 , 122 S.Ct. 1385 , 152 L.Ed.2d 375 (2002) (appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion district court’s application of § 2L1.1(b)(5) upward adjustment to facts of case).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cooper v. McGrath
To be entitled to severance on the basis of mutually antagonistic defenses, a defendant must show that the core of the codefendant’s defense is so irreconcilable with the core of his own defense that the acceptance of the codefendant’s theory by the jury precludes acquittal of the defendant.” United States v. Throckmorton, 87 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1132 , 117 S.Ct. 993 , 136 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997); see also United States v. Angwin, 271 F.3d 786, 795 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 966 , 122 S.Ct. 1385 , 152 L.Ed.2d 375 (2002) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lopez-Medina
See, e.g., United States v. Angwin, 271 F.3d 786, 809 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 966 , 122 S.Ct. 1385 , 152 L.Ed.2d 375 (2002); see also United States v. Cuyler, 298 F.3d 387, 390-91 (5th Cir. 2002) (upholding § 2L1.1(b)(5) enhancement where aliens smuggled in the back of a pick-up truck).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Boswell
v.
Board of Trustees of Texas Christian University and Boswell v. Texas Christian University
v.
Board of Trustees of Texas Christian University and Boswell v. Texas Christian University
01-1103.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 25, 2002.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
BOSWELL
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY ET AL.; and
BOSWELL
v.
TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY ET AL.
No. 01-1103.
Supreme Court of the United States.
March 25, 2002.
1
C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed as a veteran granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 263 F. 3d 162 (first judgment) and 163 (second judgment).