green
Positive treatment
4.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Harold Oxman, United States of America v. William H. Pflaumer
(2×)
But see United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237, 245-47 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976) 9 The district court suggested that because Pflaumer was present during post-trial hearings and chose not to testify--"thereby denying the government an opportunity to cross-examine him on [his knowledge]," App. at 1673--an inference might be drawn from his refusal to testify that Pflaumer in fact knew of the Wille agreement.
cited
Cited "see"
Clancy v. Commissioner of Correctional Services
See United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237, 245-46 (2d Cir.1975), cerf. denied 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 66, 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Christopher Moore
When alleged perjury is involved, not only must defendant demónstrate that the witness committed perjury, see United States v. White, 972 F.2d 16, 20 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 669 , 121 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992), but also “that the jury probably would have acquitted in the absence of the false testimony.” Sanchez, 969 F.2d at 1413-14 ; see United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237, 245-46 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sabbagh
See United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237, 245-46 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976); United States v. Krasny, 607 F.2d 840, 844-45 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1337 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alvarez v. United States
See United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237, 246 (2d Cir.1975) ("this court has noted that Mesarosh is a sui generis case") (citations omitted), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 66, 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976); United States v. Rosner, 516 F.2d 269, 282 (2d Cir.1975) ("It is true that on the strange facts of the Mesarosh case, a majority of the court voted for a new trial rather than a hearing, but,....[i]t was the government that moved in the Supreme Court for a hearing in the trial court.”), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 911 , 96 S.Ct. 3198 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1203 (1976); United States v. Zane, 507 F…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Carluin Sanchez
See United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237, 245-46 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 66, 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976); cf. United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445, 458 (2d Cir.1991) (applying Stofsky formulation and concluding that jury probably would have acquitted defendants).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kamel Kamel and Musa Khabbas
See United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237, 243 (2d Cir.1975) ("it must be recognized that in the interest of according finality to a jury’s verdict, a motion for a new trial based upon previously-undiscovered evidence is ordinarily 'not favored and should be granted only with great caution.’") (quoting United States v. Costello, 255 F.2d 876, 879 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 937 , 78 S.Ct. 1385 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1551 (1958)), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976). 9 .See also Shore v. Warden, Stateville Prison, 942 F.2d 1117, 1124 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, —…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eric Parker, Gary Phillips, and Keith Moon
In order to obtain a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the moving defendant must show, inter alia, that the new evidence would “probably lead to an acquittal.” United States v. Alessi, 638 F.2d 466, 479 (2d Cir.1980); see United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237, 243 (2d Cir.1975) (new evidence generally does not entitle defendant to a new trial unless it is likely to produce a different verdict), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael Grayson, A/K/A White Bear, United States of America v. Charles Moore, A/K/A Uncle Charlie, United States of America v. Michael Lawless, A/K/A Caveman, United States of America v. Charles McKnight A/K/A McNut United States of America v. Donald Robinson, A/K/A Dino, United States of America v. Michael Giordano, A/K/A Bugsy, United States of America v. John Gavis, A/K/A Wacker John
See United States v. Stofsky, 409 F.Supp. 609, 614 (S.D.N.Y.1973), aff'd on other grounds, 527 F.2d 237 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976) (racketeering acts must have been connected with each other by some common scheme, plan or motive so as to constitute a pattern and not simply a series of disconnected acts); United States v. Starnes, 644 F.2d 673, 677-78 (7th Cir.1981); United States v. Moeller, 402 F.Supp. 49, 57-58 (D.Conn.1975). 48 The Supreme Court in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3275 , 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985), …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Grayson
See United States v. Stofsky, 409 F.Supp. 609, 614 (S.D.N.Y.1973), aff'd on other grounds, 527 F.2d 237 (2d Cir.1975), ce rt. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976) (racketeering acts must have been connected with each other by some common scheme, plan or motive so as to constitute a pattern and not simply a series of disconnected acts); United States v. Starnes, 644 F.2d 673, 677-78 (7th Cir.1981); United States v. Moeller, 402 F.Supp. 49, 57-58 (D.Conn.1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stevenson v. State
See United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237, 247 (2d Cir.1975) (key issue in dispute would not have been affected by new evidence), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976); United States v. Krasny, 607 F.2d 840, 845 (9th Cir.1979) (when a key witness’s testimony is false it may be probable that an acquittal would result on retrial; this may not be so “when a rather inconsequential witness has prevaricated on a minor or collateral issue.”), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1337 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980); United States v. Jackson, 579 F.2d 553, 557 (10th Cir.) (r…
discussed
Cited "see"
John P. DECKER, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent
(2×)
See United States v. Blitz, 533 F.2d 1329, 1345 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 50 L.Ed.2d 79 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. McGinnis
Under circumstances indicating neglect, “the test ‘is whether there was a significant chance that this added item, developed by skilled counsel ... could have induced a reasonable doubt in the minds of enough jurors to avoid a conviction.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Sperling, 506 F.2d 1323, 1333 (2d Cir.1974)); see also United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237, 243 (2d Cir.1975) (inadvertent but negligent failure of prosecutor to disclose evidence that is of exculpatory or impeaching nature “loosens the standard of review” and require reversal only if there is a “significant c…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Donald Mazzanti
Two circuits have rejected Larrison in favor of a probability standard, at least for situations in which "the government did not knowingly or negligently use the perjured testimony.” United States v. Krasny, 607 F.2d 840, 844-45 (9th Cir.1979), ce rt. denied, 445 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 1337 , 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980); see also United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237, 245-46 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 66, 50 L.Ed.2d *1030 80 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
C & K Manufacturing & Sales Co. v. Yeutter
The Administrator must make the determination whether use of the materials pending the outcome of the hearing will “present an imminent hazard to public health.” 9 C.F.R. § 317.20 (e); see also Natick Paperboard Corp. v. Weinberger, 498 F.2d 125, 129 (1st Cir.1974), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Harvey Birdman, United States of America v. William Richman
See, e.g., United States v. Blitz, 533 F.2d 1329, 1344-45 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 50 L.Ed.2d 79 (1976) (prosecutor’s “ministerial act” of reading testimony from prior grand jury to second grand jury held proper): cf. United States v. Litton Systems, Inc., 573 F.2d 195, 201 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 828 , 99 S.Ct. 101 , 58 L.Ed.2d 121 reh. denied, 439 U.S. 997 , 99 S.Ct. 600 , 58 L.Ed.2d 671 (1978) (federal agents summarized prior grand jury evidence). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Frank Lewis Jackson, (Two Cases). United States of America v. John Brett Allen
(2×)
United States v. Mackin, 183 U.S.App.D.C. 65 , 561 F.2d 958 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 959 , 98 S.Ct. 490 , 54 L.Ed.2d 319 ; In re United States, 565 F.2d 173, 177, n.3 (1st Cir. 1977); see also United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237, 243-246 (2nd Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 , 97 S.Ct. 65 , 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Horan
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 75-1530.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1976.
Published
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.