green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.6 score
“clear showing of substantial prejudice”
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Rafael Moreno Morales, United States of America v. Angel Perez Casillas, United States of America v. Jaime Quiles Hernandez, United States of America v. Rafael Torres Marrero, United States of America v. Juan Bruno Gonzalez, United States of America v. Nelson Gonzalez Perez, United States of America v. William Colon Berrios, United States of America v. Jose Rios Polanco, United States of America v. Nazario Mateo Espada
clear showing of substantial prejudice
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. David Sepulveda, United States of America v. Edgar Sepulveda, United States of America v. Edward W. Welch, Jr., United States of America v. Arline S. Welch, United States of America v. Kevin Cullinane, United States of America v. Cheryl T. Johnson, United States of America v. Richard F. Labrie, United States of America v. Tony Rood, United States of America v. William D. Wallace, United States of America v. Ernest F. Langlois
See Ortiz, 966 F.2d at 715 ; United States v. Perkins, 926 F.2d 1271, 1283 (1st Cir.1991); see generally United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 638 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 (1980); United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 , 23 n. 3 (1st Cir.1977). 53 On five occasions, at least one defendant objected to testimony anent coconspirators' out-of-court statements. 11 We treat these objections as fully preserved--after all, the district court told counsel that it deemed an objection by one defendant sufficient to preserve the rights of all defenda…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sepulveda
See Ortiz, 966 F.2d at 715 ; United States v. Perkins, 926 F.2d 1271, 1283 (1st Cir.1991); see generally United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 638 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 (1980); United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 , 23 n. 3 (1st Cir.1977).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Maurice Isabel, United States of America v. Ronald Descoteaux, A/K/A Piece of Cake, A/K/A Wacky Ron
See United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 638 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 (1980). 11 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Greichunos
See United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 639-40 (1st Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 (1980), United States v. DiFrancesco, 604 F.2d 769, 775 (2d Cir.1979), rev’d on other grounds, 449 U.S. 117 , 101 S.Ct. 426 , 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980); United States v. Partin, 552 F.2d 621, 644-45 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 903 , 98 S.Ct. 298 , 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. John M. Arruda, United States of America v. Edward Ringland
See United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 638 (1st Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 , 449 U.S. 1038 , 101 S.Ct. 618 , 66 L.Ed.2d 501 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Edwin Thomas Barrett
See United States v. Borrelli, 621 F.2d 1092, 1095 (10th Cir.) (lay-opinion identification admissible under Rule 701 where defendant’s appearance had significantly changed since time of robbery), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 222 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lehr
See United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 640 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 (1980) (noting that no court has held disclosure of participation in the witness protection program to be grounds for mistrial). 11 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. William J. O'connell, United States of America v. Richard Crossman
See United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632 , 643 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 (1980); 1 C.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Edward A. Cincotta, United States of America v. John Zero, United States of America v. Mystic Fuel, Inc.
See United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 642-43 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Joseph Capone, United States of America v. Richard Murnane
See United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 639 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 (1982) (there is no due process violation in the absence of bad faith delay).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Paul Ciampaglia, United States of America v. William Woods, United States of America v. Peter Canessa, United States of America v. John Gintner, United States of America v. Verner Bancroft, United States of America v. Stanley McNiff Two Cases
See 101 S.Ct. 365 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Bermudez
These courts have recognized that testimony about a witness’ participation in a witness protection program, although prejudicial, ‘‘is permissible so long as the prosecutor does not attempt to exploit it.’’ United States v. DiFrancesco, supra, 604 F.2d 775 ; see id. (‘‘[s]ince a defendant often will seek to impeach a partic- ipating witness by showing that he has received signifi- cant benefits while in the program, the government may desire to bring out the witness’ participation during direct examination in order to avoid an inference that the government was attempting to hid…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Bermudez
Ed. 2d 328 (1980); see also United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 640 (1st Cir.) (risk of undue prejudice to defendant by government’s reference to witness’ participation in ‘‘witness protection program’’ generally minimal when not exploited by prosecution), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S. Ct. 365 , 66 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dianne Sutherland, United States of America v. Alan W. Fini
Petrozziello, 548 F.2d at 23 ; see also United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 637-38 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 and 449 U.S. 1038 , 101 S.Ct. 618 , 66 L.Ed.2d 501 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Richard A. Carroll
See United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir.1977); see also United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 638 (1st Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 (1980) (trial judge must consider evidence presented by both prosecution and defense when making Petrozziello finding).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Montoya
See, e.g., United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 638 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 (1980); United States v. Bell, 573 F.2d 1040, 1044 (8th Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert Hyson, United States of America v. Edward Ennis, A/K/A \Tiger\"
(2×)
See also United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 626 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 365 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 (1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sinclair
v.
Brown, District Attorney, Parish of East Baton Rouge
v.
Brown, District Attorney, Parish of East Baton Rouge
No. 80-5030.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 3, 1980.
Published
Citer courts: First Circuit (1)
Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.