green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.3 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“Anything which ‘stops the clock’ for one defendant does so for the same amount of time as to all defendants.”
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. William Tobin
anything which 'stops the clock' for one defendant does so for the same amount of time as to all defendants.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Green
See United States v. Peoples, 748 F.2d at 934, 936 (4th Cir.1984) (“Unfair prejudice does not result if evidence admissible to prove each charge is also admissible to prove the other charge.”), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2143 , 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Vasquez
See Stumes v. Solem, 752 F.2d 317, 321 (8th Cir.) (six and one-half hour gap between warnings and second interview did not violate Miranda because “[t]o require the police to reissue Miranda rights under these circumstances would serve no real purpose.”), cer t. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2145 , 85 L.Ed.2d 502 (1985). 9.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Atlas Norris Pugh, Jr.
See Stumes v. Solem, 752 F.2d 317, 321 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2145 , 85 L.Ed.2d 502 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. David Ellzey
See United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973) ("we may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction"). 7 Although this court has frequently acknowledged that such an instance of outrageousness might one day arise, see United States v. Lambinus, 747 F.2d 592, 595 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 (1985); United States v. Salazar, 720 F.2d 1482, 1488 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1110 (19…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Maloy
See United States v. Pirolli, 742 F.2d 1382, 1384 (11th Cir.1984) (“Anything which ‘stops the clock’ for one defendant does so for the same amount of time as to all co-defendants”), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2143 , 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Flanders v. Meachum
See generally, State v. Toomey, 38 Wash. App. 831 , 690 P.2d 1175, 1181 (1984) (participant, as used in statute virtually identical to Connecticut’s felony murder statute, “means another person involved in the crime — i.e., another principal or accomplice”), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2145 , 85 L.Ed.2d 501 (1985); see also Simms, 201 Conn. at 417-418 , 518 A.2d 35 (trial court gave proper instruction when it “elaborated upon the words ‘other participants’ by express reference to accessory statute, General Statutes § 53-8”); Fleming, 198 Conn. at 271 , 502 A.2d 886…
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America, Plaintiff/appellant/cross-Appellee v. Robert Nall, Defendant/appellee/ Cross-Appellant, and Robert McIntosh
See United States v. Lambinus, 747 F.2d 592, 597 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2143 , 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Moseley
See Stumes v. Solem, 752 F.2d 317 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2145 , 85 L.Ed.2d 502 (1985) (five-hour delay); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mervyn Harold Cross A/K/A Eric Cross, and Robert Carter Lodge
See United States v. Pirolli, 742 F.2d 1382, 1386 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2143 , 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985); United States v. Berkowitz, 662 F.2d *1039 1127, 1134 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (test for antagonistic defenses considers whether each defendant had to confront hostile witnesses presented by co-defendant).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Puzzo, Joseph Paci
See United States v. Lambinus, 747 F.2d 592, 597 (10th Cir.1984) (testimony offered to show effect of statements on listener not hearsay), ce rt. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2143 , 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985); United States v. Leake, 642 F.2d 715, 720 (4th Cir.1981) (statement offered as evidence of defendant’s state of mind not hearsay); United States v. Carter, 491 F.2d 625, 628-29 (5th Cir.1974) (same).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Jeter
See State v. Wilks, 121 Wis. 2d 93, 100 , 358 N.W.2d 273, 277 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Tarawneh v. State
See generally United States v. Pirolli, 742 F.2d 1382 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2143 , 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. United States
(2×)
See Fields v. United States, 484 A.2d 570, 573 (D.C.1984), ce rt. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2144 , 85 L.Ed.2d 501 (1985); see also Evans v. United States, 392 A.2d 1015, 1022-23 (D.C.1978); Super.Ct.Crim.R. 12(b)(2), 12(d), 47-I(c).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rudolph Jackson, United States of America v. Larry George Deleveaux
See United States v. Peoples, 748 F.2d 934 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2143 , 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Munroe v. State
See United States v. Pirolli, 742 F.2d 1382, 1387 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2143 , 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Silanskas
See also Stumes v. Solem, 752 F.2d 317, 320 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 (1985) (six and one-half hours between warnings and waiver not too long); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John Raymond Koontz
In a case in which we specifically considered the application of Innis , we held that, for Miranda purposes, statements made in response to a law enforcement officer’s “attempt to seek clarification” of a defendant’s remarks, during an interview requested by the defendant, are not the “products of interrogation.” Butzin v. Wood, 886 F.2d 1016, 1018 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 909 , 110 S.Ct. 2595 , 110 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990); see also United States v. Hawkins, 102 F.3d 973, 975 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1456 , 137 L.Ed.2d 560 (1997), and Stumes v. S…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John R. Koontz
In a case in which we specifically considered the application of Innis, we held that, for Miranda purposes, statements made in response to a law enforcement officer's "attempt to seek clarification" of a defendant's remarks, during an interview requested by the defendant, are not the "products of interrogation." Butzin v. Wood, 886 F.2d 1016, 1018 (8th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 909 (1990); see also United States v. Hawkins, 102 F.3d 973, 975 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1456 (1997), and Stumes v. Solem, 752 F.2d 317, 322-23 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 (19…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Mello
See also Stumes v. Solem, 752 F.2d 317, 320 (8th Cir.), cert, denied, 471 U.S. 1067 (1985) (six and one-half hours between warnings and waiver not too long); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gambino
Courts have held that a bail jumping charge may be joined with the underlying offense under Rule 8(a) “if they are related in time, the motive for flight was avoidance of prosecution of the underlying offense, and custody derived directly from the underlying offense.” United States v. Gabay, 923 F.2d 1536, 1539 (11th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Peoples, 748 F.2d 934, 936 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2143 , 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985); United States v. Ritch, 583 F.2d 1179, 1181 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 970, 99 S.Ct. 463 , 58 L.Ed.2d 430 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William McIntyre United States of America v. John Antonio Evans
See, e.g., United States v. Peoples, 748 F.2d 934, 936 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 (1985) 2 Because we dispose of this claim on the ground that Appellants have failed to show prejudice, we do not address whether this material was discoverable under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(D) 3 The relevant portion of the Act provides: (a) [N]o statement or report in the possession of the United States which was made by a Government witness ... shall be the subject of subpena [sic], discovery, or inspection until said witness has testified on direct examination in the trial …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carl Eugene Kelly v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent
See Evans v. McCotter, 790 F.2d 1232, 1238 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 , 107 S.Ct. 327 , 93 L.Ed.2d 300 (1986); see also Stumes v. Solem, 752 F.2d 317, 321 (8th Cir.) (finding that failure to give Miranda warnings before second interview did not establish Mosley violation), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2145 , 85 L.Ed.2d 502 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Harold Lamont Otey v. Gary Grammer, Warden of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex
See also Stumes v. Solem, 752 F.2d 317 , 321 n. 4 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2145 , 85 L.Ed.2d 502 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hollingsworth v. United States
The Supreme Court, for example, has said in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), “The practice of showing suspects singly to persons for the purpose of identification, and not as part of a lineup, has been widely condemned.” Id. at 302 , 87 S.Ct. at 1972 (footnote omitted); see also Fields v. United States, 484 A.2d 570, 574 (D.C.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067 , 105 S.Ct. 2144 , 85 L.Ed.2d 501 (1985); Singletary v. United States, 383 A.2d 1064, 1068 (D.C.1978); Russell v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 77 , 81, 408 F.2d 1280, 1284 , cert. denied, 39…
Riggins
v.
Internal Revenue Service
v.
Internal Revenue Service
No. 84-1595.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 29, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.