green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
5.0 score
“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.”
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
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.
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. 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"
United States v. Thomas Calvin Ricks, A/K/A Joe Dancer, United States of America v. Marcell Moffett, A/K/A Black Barney, United States of America v. Maurice David King, A/K/A Peanut
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).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Bucey
See United States v. Ayarza-Garcia, 819 F.2d 1043, 1048 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 465 , 98 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987); United States v. Caceres-Prado, 601 F.Supp. 468, 470 (D.P.R.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gaffney
Winkle, 587 F.2d at 714 ; see United States v. Ayarza-Garcia, 819 F.2d 1043, 1051 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 465 , 98 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987); United States v. Caporale, 806 F.2d 1487, 1503 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3191 , 96 L.Ed.2d 679 (1987).
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."
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."
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. Donald Louis Monroe
The in furtherance of the conspiracy standard must not be applied too strictly, “lest we defeat the purpose of the exception.” United States v. James, 510 F.2d 546, 549 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Vasquez v. United States, 423 U.S. 855 , 96 S.Ct. 105 , 46 L.Ed.2d 81 (1975); see also United States v. Ayarza-Garcia, 819 F.2d 1043, 1050 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 465 , 98 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mena
Compare Gonzalez, 776 F.2d at 940 (“consent” is not an element of the offense defined in 21 U.S.C. § 955a(c)) with United States v. Ayarza-Garcia, 819 F.2d 1043, 1048-49 (11th Cir.) (whether a vessel is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” for the purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 955a(a) is a question of fact), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 465 , 98 L.Ed. 2d 404 (1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jones
v.
North Carolina
v.
North Carolina
No. 87-5741.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 30, 1987.
Published
Citer courts: N.D. Georgia (1)
Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.