green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
6.7 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“[Enquiries that seek to probe the mental processes of jurors are impermissible.”
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Parker v. Turpin
enquiries that seek to probe the mental processes of jurors are impermissible.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Sandra Hernandez, A/K/A \Cha Cha
the trial court has broad discretion as to how to proceed when confronted with an allegation of jury misconduct, including discretion with regard to the initial decision as to whether to interrogate jurors.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Humphrey Jones
(2×)
"Knowledge and participation in the conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence." United States v. Giunta, 925 F.2d 758, 764 (4th Cir.1991); see United States v. Meredith, 824 F.2d 1418, 1428 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 (1987) 4 When there is a large quantity of drugs being sold, evidence of a "one-shot agreement" standing alone may be sufficient evidence to support a conspiracy conviction.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jones
"Knowledge and participation in the conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence." United States v. Giunta, 925 F.2d 758, 764 (4th Cir. 1991); see United States v. Meredith, 824 F.2d 1418, 1428 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 (1987). 5 seller relationship is relevant (i.e., probative) on the question of whether a conspiratorial relationship exists.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Finn
See, United States v. Ayarza-Garcia, 819 F.2d 1043, 1048 (11th Cir.1987) (the determination of the validity of a defense or any other question of fact is improper when considering a pretrial Motion to dismiss an Indictment), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 466 , 98 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Douglas Samuel, Jr.
United States v. Giunta, 925 F.2d 758, 764 (4th Cir.1991); see United States v. Meredith, 824 F.2d 1418, 1428 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 (1987), 485 U.S. 991 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Todd Hayes, United States of America v. Keith Hayes
See United States v. Meredith, 824 F.2d 1418, 1428 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 (1987), 485 U.S. 991 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Wolff
See generally United States v. Ayarza-Garcia, 819 F.2d 1043, 1048 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 465 , 98 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987), and cases cited therein.
discussed
Cited "see"
Singleton v. United States
See United States v. Canales, 744 F.2d 413, 434 (5th Cir.1984) (“the trial court may under no circumstances withdraw any element of an offense from the jury’s consideration in a criminal ease”)_ United States v. Ayarza-Garcia, 819 F.2d 1043, 1048-1049 (11th Cir.) (the jurisdictional element is a material element of the crime under 21 U.S.C. § 955a(a) and, upon denial of defendants’ Rule 29 motion, is a question for the jury), cert, denied [ 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 465 , 98 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987)], ...
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. William Droge
See, United States v. Giraldo, 822 F.2d 205, 210 (2d Cir.) cert. denied 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 466 , 98 L.Ed.2d 405 (1987); United States v. Brown, 479 F.2d 1170, 1174 (2d Cir.1973).
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Walter J. Butler, Cross-Appellee
See United States v. Giraldo, 822 F.2d 205, 213 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 466 , 98 L.Ed.2d 405 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Mervyn Harold Cross A/K/A Eric Cross, and Robert Carter Lodge
See United States v. Ayarza-Garcia, 819 F.2d 1043, 1048 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 465 (1987); United States v. Clark, 546 F.2d 1130, 1135 (5th Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
James MATLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Etc., Defendant-Appellee
See Harper by Harper v. Bowen, 813 F.2d 737, 742-43 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 466 , 98 L.Ed.2d 405 (1987); Adams v. Heckler, 799 F.2d 131, 133 (4th Cir.1986); Smith v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 516, 519 (8th Cir.1985); Dietsch v. Schweiker, 700 F.2d 865, 867 (2d Cir.1983); cf. Watters v. Harris, 656 F.2d 234, 239 (7th Cir.1980) (refusal to extend administrative deadline for requesting a hearing before an ALJ is not subject to judicial review); but see Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1236-39 (11th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
ca4 1989
See United States v. Meredith, 824 F.2d 1418, 1428 (4 Cir.1987) ("The trial court, in its discretion, may admit such statements into evidence prior to proof of conspiracy, contingent upon a later showing of conspiracy by independent evidence."), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 465 , 98 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987), --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1297 , 99 L.Ed.2d 507 (1988); cf. Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 180-82 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2781-82 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 156 (1987) (trial court may look to the co-conspirator statement itself when seeking to determine whether a conspiracy exists).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ricks
See United States v. Meredith, 824 F.2d 1418, 1428 (4 Cir.1987) (“The trial court, in its discretion, may admit such statements into evidence prior to proof of conspiracy, contingent upon a later showing of conspiracy by independent evidence.”), cer t. denied, 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 465 , 98 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987), — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1297 , 99 L.Ed.2d 507 (1988); cf. Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 180-82 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2781-82 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 156 (1987) (trial court may look to the co-conspirator statement itself when seeking to determine whether a conspiracy exists).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bradford Lee Butler
See, e.g., United States v. Middleton, 246 F.3d 825, 841 (6th Cir.2001) (citing United States v. Powell, 823 F.2d 996, 1001 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 464 , 98 L.Ed.2d 403 (1987)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca4 1996
That argument is simply contradicted by the last sentence of the rule, which gives the trial court discretion on whether to award additional challenges: "If there is more than one defendant, the court may allow the defendants additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly." Id. (emphasis added); see also United States v. Meredith, 824 F.2d 1418, 1423 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 (1987), and cert. denied, 485 U.S. 991 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Smith
That argument is simply contradicted by the last sentence of the rule, which gives the trial court discretion on whether to award additional challenges: "If there is more than one defendant, the court may allow the defendants additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly." Id. (emphasis added); see also United States v. Meredith, 824 F.2d 1418, 1423 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 (1987), and cert. denied, 485 U.S. 991 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
David Medina v. Michelle K. Loveless, and James W. Loveless
Co., 328 U.S. 217 (1946); see also United States v. Meredith, 824 F.2d 1418 , 1424 & n. 3 (4th Cir.) (litigants not entitled to correlative number of minority members on jury as in community, only to jury randomly chosen from representative pool), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gerald M. HILMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee
See also Harper v. Bowen, 813 F.2d 737 (5th Cir.) (denial of an extension of time to seek Appeals Council review of an AU decision was not reviewable), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 466 , 98 L.Ed.2d 405 (1987); Bacon v. Sullivan, 969 F.2d 1517 (3d Cir.1992) (Appeals Council’s dismissal of untimely appeal from AU decision is not reviewable).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pretel
Compare United States v. Bent-Santana, 774 F.2d 1545, 1548 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that "[t]he jurisdictional reach under section 955a is strictly a question of law") with United States v. Ayarza-Garcia, 819 F.2d 1043 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 465 , 98 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987) (holding that whether a vessel is subject to jurisdiction under section 955a is a question of fact). 12 In support of their argument, the appellants rely upon United States v. Aikins, 923 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.1990), a case decided under section 1903.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pretel
Compare United States v. Bent-Santana, 774 F.2d 1545, 1548 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that “[t]he jurisdictional reach under section 955a is strictly a question of law”) with United States v. Ayarza-Garcia, 819 F.2d 1043 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 465 , 98 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987) (holding that whether a vessel is subject to jurisdiction under section 955a is a question of fact).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shell v. Wall
See State v. Porter, 303 N.C. 680 , 281 S.E.2d 377, 384 (1981); see also State v. Jones, 85 N.C.App. 56 , 354 S.E.2d 251, 258 , review denied, 320 N.C. 173 , 358 S.E.2d 61 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 465 , 98 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Childress
See, e.g., United States v. Meredith, 824 F.2d 1418 (4th Cir.) (holding that seven criminal defendants were properly denied additional peremptory challenges when defendants refused to allow government additional challenges), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969, 108 S.Ct. 465 , 98 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987); cf. United States v. Mayes, 512 F.2d 637 (6th Cir.) (allowing twenty-four defendants to make twenty-four peremptory challenges collectively), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1008, 95 S.Ct. 2629 , 45 L.Ed.2d 670 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gaines
See also, United States v. Giraldo, 822 F.2d 205 (2d Cir.1987) (telephone messages of customers placing coded orders for cocaine were not hearsay and were admissible to show cocaine possessed by defendant was for purposes of distribution), ce rt. denied, 484 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 466 , 98 L.Ed.2d 405 (1987); United States v. Southard, 700 F.2d 1, 13 (1st Cir.1983) (conversations of placing of bets constituted verbal acts that were evidence of defendants’ operation of gambling business and were not admitted for truth of matter asserted and, thus, were not hearsay), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 823 ,…
Cooper
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 87-5740.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 30, 1987.
484 U.S. 969
Published
Citer courts: N.D. Georgia (1)
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.