green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.2 score
“the provisions of the are applicable only when a participating jurisdiction, having untried charges pending against a prisoner, first lodges a detainer with the participating jurisdiction where the prisoner is incarcerated”
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Burl Glasgow
the provisions of the are applicable only when a participating jurisdiction, having untried charges pending against a prisoner, first lodges a detainer with the participating jurisdiction where the prisoner is incarcerated
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cochran v. State
ost of the spectacular miscarriages have been due to the wrong identification of the defendant as a culprit.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Broulik
See United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 915 (2d Cir.) (jury instructed “not to consider the evidence as going to the character of the accused but only as going to identity”), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
East Coast Novelty Co., Inc. v. City of New York
See United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979); United States v. Alessi, 638 F.2d 466 (2d Cir.1980).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Wayde Lynn Kurt
See United States v. Dixon, 592 F.2d 329, 333 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ingram v. United States
Appellant argues that, at least in the context of armed robbery, D.C.Code § 22-2901, -3202, where there is a separate enhancement provision calling for additional penalties if a robber is armed, a conviction for aiding and abetting requires a jury instruction and a finding that the accomplice “knew that [the principal] was armed and intended to use the weapon, and intended to aid him in that respect.” United States v. Short, 493 F.2d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir.) (reversing for lack of proper instructions appellant’s conviction for aiding and abetting bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), aggrav…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Edward Ramon Mena
Accord United States v. Dixon, 592 F.2d 329, 339-40 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robinson v. Scully
See United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 916 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 2179 (1978) (testimony of a single, uncorroborated eyewitness is generally sufficient to support conviction).
discussed
Cited "see"
Patsy Kelly Jarrett v. Frank R. Headley, Superintendent of Bedford Hills Correctional Facility
See United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 910, 915-16 (2d Cir.) (though preferable for prosecutor, in second showing of photos, to ask witness to pick out the person she had seen rather than to “see if [she] could still pick out the same person as [she] picked out the last time,” this phrasing was not impermissibly suggestive), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank McKoy
See United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Brannan
See United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 913 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979), citing 2 J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cyril Edwards v. E.W. Jones, Superintendent, Great Meadows Correctional Facility and Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York
See Jackson v. Virginia, supra, 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S.Ct. at 2789 . 14 We have held that "the testimony of a single, uncorroborated eyewitness is generally sufficient to support a conviction." See United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 916 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Donald Wesley Taylor, United States of America v. Steven Wayne Pressler, and Donald Wesley Taylor
(2×)
See United States v. Jones, 592 F.2d 1038 , 1044 n. 9 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979) (pointing out that Ma-berry was a case in which the complained of questioning was highly “prejudicial”, clearly “improper”, and “unethical”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James Burke, Anthony Perla, Rocco Perla, and Richard Kuhn
See United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 917-18 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Maggard v. Wainwright
See United States v. Dixon, 592 F.2d 329 (6th Cir.1979), cert. den. 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 ; United States v. Cyphers, 556 F.2d 630 (2nd Cir.1977), cert. den. 431 U.S. 972 , 97 S.Ct. 2937 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1070 , and cert. den. 436 U.S. 950 , 98 S.Ct. 2858 , 56 L.Ed.2d 792 ; and Gray v. Benson, 443 F. Supp. 1284 (D.C.Kan. 1978). [6] The language of this subsection itself suggests its nonapplicability to parole violations, since it speaks of dismissal of charges by the appropriate "court" of the jurisdiction where the indictment, information, or complaint "has been pending," …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Terrence E. Mason v. Charles J. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility
See, e.g., United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 917-18 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Onel Colon, Alvarado, Et Ano.
Figueroa, 618 F.2d at 939 ; see also United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 912-14 (2d Cir.) (distinguishing use of such evidence to prove identity), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979); Benedetto, 571 F.2d at 1249 ; United States v. Leonard, 524 F.2d 1076, 1092 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 958 , 96 S.Ct. 1737 , 48 L.Ed.2d 202 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Moore
See also United States v. Dixon, 592 F.2d 329 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979) where the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stated: A detainer is simply a notice filed with the institution in which a prisoner is serv *597 ing a sentence, advising that the prisoner is wanted to face pending criminal charges elsewhere, and requesting the custodian to notify the filing jurisdiction prior to releasing the prisoner.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Ismail v. Cohen
See, e.g., United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 915 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Foster v. United States
(2×)
Nelson v. Follette, supra, 430 F.2d at 1055 ); see also United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lozado v. LeFevre
These facts contrast sharply with those necessary to satisfy the Bruton test of vital importance to the prosecution’s case, see, e.g., United States v. Knuckles, 581 F.2d at 313 ; United States v. Wingate, 520 F.2d at 313-14 ; see also United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 917-19 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979), and therefore may not serve as the basis for habeas corpus relief. 4 CONCLUSION Petitioner has failed to establish the existence of any federal constitutional claim warranting habeas corpus relief.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brink's Inc. v. City of New York
As pointed out by Judge Weinfeld, however, the evidence is not prejudicial in the sense of being inflammatory, 539 F.Supp. at 1141 , even though it is prejudicial in the sense of giving support to a party’s position, i.e., it is “damning.” United States v. Cirillo, 468 F.2d 1233, 1240 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 989 , 93 S.Ct. 1501 , 36 L.Ed.2d 188 (1973); see also United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 910-15 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brink's Inc. v. The City of New York, Brink's Inc., Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. John Adams, Anthony De Nardo, Trevor Fairweather, Richard Florio, James Gargiulo, Michael Solomon, William J. Donovan, Francis Gitto, William McInerney Anthony San Marco, James Springett, John Barrera and Joseph Nardo, and Jorge Olivari, Ramon Hernandez, and Jose Rodriguez, Appellees-Cross-Appellants
As pointed out by Judge Weinfeld, however, the evidence is not prejudicial in the sense of being inflammatory, 539 F.Supp. at 1141 , even though it is prejudicial in the sense of giving support to a party's position, i.e., it is "damning." United States v. Cirillo, 468 F.2d 1233, 1240 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 989 , 93 S.Ct. 1501 , 36 L.Ed.2d 188 (1973); see also United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 910-15 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979). 27 We agree with Judge Weinfeld's determination that, given the probative value of this evidence…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hugo Marin and Virgilio Orlando Romero
See also United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 917 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979) (dictum).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re A. O. S.
No. 78-6539.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 14, 1979.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Criminal Appeals of A… (1) · Sixth Circuit (1)
Ct. App. D’. C. Certiorari denied.