green
Positive treatment
6.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Robert Dibernardo and Theodore Rothstein
But see United States v. Schaflander, 743 F.2d 714, 717 (9th Cir.1984) (constitutional claims may be raised on collateral review even if not raised on appeal), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dinero Express, Inc.
See United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 489 (2d Cir.) (records not hearsay where “admitted not to establish the truth of the matters asserted but rather to prove the sham nature of the [transactions]”), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alfred R. Dyer v. Arthur Calderon, Warden
(2×)
See United States v. Schaflander, 743 F.2d 714, 718-19 (9th Cir.1984) (Schaflander ) (failure to present cumulative testimony does not show prejudicial ineffective assistance), ce rt. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alfred R. DYER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
(2×)
See United States v. Schaflander, 743 F.2d 714, 718-19 (9th Cir.1984) (Schaflander ) (failure to present cumulative testimony does not show prejudicial ineffective assistance), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wilson
Romero submitted a declaration signed by Hoyos under penalty of perjury in which Hoyos stated that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right to silence at his own trial, but would waive those rights and testify at Romero's trial if Romero were granted a separate trial. 31 In deciding whether to grant severance based on the defendant's need to call a co-defendant, a district court should consider "(1) the sufficiency of the showing that the co-defendant would testify at a severed trial and waive his Fifth Amendment privilege; (2) the degree to which the exculpatory testimony would be cumulative…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wilson
In deciding whether to grant severance based on the defendant’s need to call a co-defendant, a district court should consider “(1) the sufficiency of the showing that the co-defendant would testify at a severed trial and waive his Fifth Amendment privilege; (2) the degree to which the exculpatory testimony would be cumulative; (3) the counter arguments of judicial economy; and (4) the likelihood that the testimony would be subject to substantial, damaging impeachment.” United States v. Finkelstein, 526 F.2d 517, 523-24 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 960 , 96 S.Ct. 1742 , 48 L.Ed.2…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Manouk Mkhsian, United States of America v. Abram Meliksetian, United States of America v. Andranik Sogoyan
See United States v. North, 746 F.2d 627, 630 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1773 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
William Belber v. Charles S. Lipson, M.D., D/B/A Metromedic Walk in Medical Center, Appeal of W. Robert Felix, Jr., M.D.
See generally, United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 496-500 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Thomas Dean Mills
Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence, ¶ 404[16], at 404-127 (1985) (quoting McCormick on Evidence, § 157 (1954)); see United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 486-87 (2d Cir.1984) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 , 471 U.S. 1137 , 105 S.Ct. 2679 , 86 L.Ed.2d 697 (1985); United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 911 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilson v. United States
See Gates v. United States, 481 A.2d 120 (D.C.1984) (Brady), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985); cf. United States v. Deutsch, 475 F.2d 55, 57 (5th Cir.1973) (Brady v. Maryland requires production of a statement of a postal office employee as an agency closely connected to the indictment), rev’d on other grounds, United States v. Henry, 749 F.2d 203 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. Ehrlichman, 376 F.Supp. 29, 36 (D.D.C.1974) (Brady).
cited
Cited "see"
Easton v. United States
See Gates v. United States, 481 A.2d 120, 124 (D.C.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Sandra Vaccaro, John Vaccaro, Michael Brennan, Paul Bond, Norman Alvis, Stephen Labarbera, Dorothy Snider, and William Cushing
See United States v. Schaflander, 743 F.2d 714, 720 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Adolf Meyer
United States v. Kazni, 576 F.2d 238, 242 (9th Cir.1978); see United States v. Schaflander, 743 F.2d 714, 717 (9th Cir. 1984) (“customary procedure in this Circuit for challenging the effectiveness of defense counsel in a federal criminal trial is by collateral attack on the conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255”), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Porcaro v. United States
See United States v. Schaflander, 743 F.2d 714, 717 (9th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Claude S. Birtle
No evidentiary hearing is required, however, if the “motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ; see United States v. Schaflander, 743 F.2d 714, 717 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Franke Eugenio Martinez
We recently examined the question in United States v. Gann, 732 F.2d 714 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 505 , 83 L.Ed.2d 397 (1984), noting that “[sjome cases have suggested an abuse of discretion standard, while others deem the issue to be one of mixed law and fact, calling for the application of the clearly erroneous standard.” Id. at 724 (citations omitted); see United States v. North, 746 F.2d 627, 632 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1773 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Mark I. Tebha, Cross-Appellee
In United States v. Vasquez, 597 F.2d 192 (9th Cir.1979), we stated that when information not placed in evidence reaches the jury during its deliberations, the defendant is entitled to a new trial if “there exist[ed] a reasonable possibility that the extrinsic material could have affected the verdict.” Id. at 193 ; see United States v. North, 746 F.2d 627, 632 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1773 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Reginald Lacroix Poole v. United States
See, e.g., United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 , 484 & n. 3 (2nd Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985); United States v. Schoenhut, 576 F.2d 1010 , 1019 & n. 9 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 964 , 99 S.Ct. 450 , 58 L.Ed.2d 421 (1978).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Messer
See also United States v. Martell, 572 F.Supp. 110, 113 (D.Mont.1983), aff'd without opinion, 742 F.2d 1463 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Battle v. United States
Specifically, we find no merit to Battle’s contentions that reversible error was committed by the trial court: (1) in admitting "other crimes” evidence; see e.g., Gates v. United States, 481 A.2d 120, 123 (D.C.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 , 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985); (2) by denying his motion for acquittal on two assault with intent to kidnap while armed counts, assault with a dangerous weapon, and communicating a threat, see generally United States v. Hubbard, 429 A.2d 1334 (D.C.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 857 , 102 S.Ct. 308 , 70 L.Ed.2d 153 (1981); (3) by refusing his r…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kalevas
Alfano Aff., at 2. [38] See United States v. Marquez, 319 F.Supp. 1016 , 1017-18 & n. 3 (S.D.N.Y.1970); see also United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 496 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985); United States v. Bari, 750 F.2d 1169, 1177 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 3482 , 87 L.Ed.2d 617 (1985); United States v. Lyles, 593 F.2d 182, 192 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 972 , 99 S.Ct. 1537 , 59 L.Ed.2d 789 (1979); United States v. Taylor, 562 F.2d 1345, 1362 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 432 U.S. 909 , 97 S.Ct. 2958 , 53 L.Ed.2d 10…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kalevas
See United States v. Marquez, 319 F.Supp. 1016 , 1017-18 & n. 3 (S.D.N.Y.1970); see also United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 496 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1772 , 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985); United States v. Bari, 750 F.2d 1169, 1177 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 3482 , 87 L.Ed.2d 617 (1985); United States v. Lyles, 593 F.2d 182, 192 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 972 , 99 S.Ct. 1537 , 59 L.Ed.2d 789 (1979); United States v. Taylor, 562 F.2d 1345, 1362 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 432 U.S. 909 , 97 S.Ct. 2958 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1083 (1977); United States v. …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Schaflander
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 84-6228.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 18, 1985.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.