green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.9 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Roger A. Gauntlett v. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, Respondent
here a different judge or a different jury impose a harsher sentence after an earlier convic 218 tion has been set aside, the possibility of vindictiveness is remote.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Scott E. Hildebrand, United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Joan M. Webb, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Larry A. Webb, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. David I. Gardemann, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Joseph A. Mentlick, Jr., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Kenneth Lee Kraklio, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee. United States of America v. Allen K. Zurcher
Their speech was challenged only to the extent that they fraudulently solicited claims. "[W]here speech becomes an integral part of the crime, a First Amendment defense is foreclosed even if the prosecution rests on words alone." United States v. Freeman, 761 F.2d 549, 552 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1120 , 106 S.Ct. 1982 , 90 L.Ed.2d 664 (1986); see United States v. Holecek, 739 F.2d 331, 335 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 , 105 S.Ct. 1200 , 84 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985). 24 IV.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Scott E. Hildebrand
Their speech was challenged only to the extent that they fraudulently solicited claims. “[W]here speech becomes an integral part of the crime, a First Amendment defense is foreclosed even if the prosecution rests on words alone.” United States v. Freeman, 761 F.2d 549, 552 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1120 , 106 S.Ct. 1982 , 90 L.Ed.2d 664 (1986); see United States v. Holecek, 739 F.2d 331, 335 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 , 105 S.Ct. 1200 , 84 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Santiago Castillo-Arvizu, United States of America v. Juan Sanchez-Cervantes, AKA Hugo Quirox, Hugo Quiroc, Hugo Quiroz, Hugo Oquiroz Trejo, and Hugo Quiroz Tapia, United States of America v. Adolfo Brahms-Garcia, AKA Jose Quarta, United States of America v. Enrique Cisneros-Silva, AKA Kiki
See United States v. O'Connor, 737 F.2d 814 , 818 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 (1985) ("This is not a situation where 'government agents engineer and direct the criminal enterprise from start to finish.' " (internal citation omitted)).
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Catherine KEARNS, Defendant-Appellant
See United States v. O’Connor, 737 F.2d 814 , 819 & n. 3 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 , 105 S.Ct. 1198 , 84 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kenneth Johnson
See United States v. O'Connor, 737 F.2d 814 , 819 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 (1985) (evidence of aborted narcotics transaction in 1980 admissible under Rule 404(b) regarding conspiracy in 1981 because it explained how government informant's underlying debt formed basis of undercover sting); see also United States v. McKoy, 771 F.2d 1207, 1214 (9th Cir. 1985) (prior transactions between defendant and co-conspirator admissible under Rule 404(b) where transactions provided background and development of conspiracy and revealed nature of relationship between co-conspirators). 13 W…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fausto Enrique Diaz, United States of America v. Adalberto Jose Restrepo-Gonzalez, United States of America v. Lazaro Rico Pinzon
See United States v. O'Connor, 737 F.2d 814 , 819 (9th Cir.1984) (evidence of an aborted Colombian narcotics transaction admissible under Rule 404(b) as explanatory background of Government's undercover operation), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Winford L. Stokes, Jr. v. William M. Armontrout, William L. Webster
See United States v. Lippert, 740 F.2d 457, 460 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 , 105 S.Ct. 1200 , 84 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985); United States v. Pleasant, 730 F.2d 657, 664 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 869 , 105 S.Ct. 216 , 83 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alan J. Casey
See United States v. Hastings, 739 F.2d 1269, 1273 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 , 105 S.Ct. 1199 , 84 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985) (“[SJince the record in the present case does not reveal a comparable atmosphere of recognized racial tension,” there is no need to question jurors individually.).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hector Medrano, (Two Cases)
See also United States v. O’Connor, 737 F.2d 814 , 819 (9th Cir.1984) (affirming a possession conviction even though, because of intense surveillance “there was scant, if any, chance that the government-supplied cocaine would find its *1218 way into distribution.”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 , 105 S.Ct. 1198 , 84 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hector Medrano, United States of America v. Hector Medrano
See also' United States v. O’Connor, 737 F.2d 814 , 819 (9th Cir.1984) (affirming a possession conviction even though, because of intense surveillance “there was scant, if any, chance that the government-supplied cocaine would find its way into distribution.”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 , 105 S.Ct. 1198 , 84 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kojo Sababu, Jaime Delgado, and Dora Garcia
See, e.g., United States v. Hasting, 739 F.2d 1269, 1272 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 , 105 S.Ct. 1199 , 84 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985); Fietzer v. Ford Motor Co., 622 F.2d 281, 284 (7th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Raymond Ferguson v. Norris W. McMackin Superintendent
See, e.g., United States v. Lippert, 740 F.2d 457, 460 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 (1984). 26 Therefore, because Ferguson has presented no evidence to demonstrate that judicial vindictiveness played a part in his sentencing, or that he was being punished for a successful appeal, his contention as to this point is without merit. 27 Ferguson's second claim is that he was convicted under a vague and indefinite statute, and that the ambiguity of the statute was reflected in the court's instructions to the jury on the required elements of the alleged acts.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Alion Andersson, United States of America v. Charles W. Hinck
See, e.g., United States v. O’Connor, 737 F.2d 814 , 819-20 (9th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 , 105 S.Ct. 1198 , 84 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985); United States v. Tille, 729 F.2d 615, 621 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 845 , 105 S.Ct. 156 , 83 L.Ed.2d 93 (1984); Layton, 720 F.2d at 561 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gauntlett v. Kelley
McCullough , 475 U.S. at -, 106 S.Ct. at 980, 89 L.Ed.2d at 112 ; see also United States v. Lippert, 740 F.2d 457, 460 (6th Cir.1984) (“where a different judge or a different jury impose a harsher sentence after an earlier conviction has been set aside, the possibility of vindictiveness is *1493 remote”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 , 105 S.Ct. 1200 , 84 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985); Brown v. District Court, 637 F.Supp. 1096, 1099 (E.D.N.Y.1986) (indicating the Pearce presumption does not apply where an appellate court imposes the new sentence).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Darrel Paterson Simpson, Robert MacRiner Anderson, and James Roy Freeman
See, e.g., United States v. O’Connor, 737 F.2d 814 , 817-18 (9th Cir.1984) (use of informant to sell cocaine provided by government was not outrageous), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 , 105 S.Ct. 1198 , 84 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985); see also United States v. Bowling, 666 F.2d 1052, 1054-55 (6th Cir.1981) (informant’s participation in nonviolent property crimes held not to be outrageous), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 960 , 102 S.Ct. 1475 , 71 L.Ed.2d 680 (1982); United States v. Brown, 635 F.2d 1207, 1213 (6th Cir.1980) (same). 9 D THE GOVERNMENT’S INVOLVEMENT IN “MANUFACTURING” THE DEFENDANTS’ CRI…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Richard L. Thompson
As a general matter, voir dire (absent special circumstances not present here) need only provide “some basis for a reasonably knowledgeable exercise of the right of challenge whether for cause or peremptory.” United States v. Jackson, 542 F.2d 403, 413 (7th Cir.1976); see also United States v. Hasting, 739 F.2d 1269, 1273 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 , 105 S.Ct. 1199, 1200 , 84 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985); Fietzer v. Ford Motor Co., 622 F.2d 281, 284 (7th Cir.1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thetford
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 84-5307.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 19, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (1)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.