green
Positive treatment
13.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Serafin Alfonso, Humberto Rayo, Fabian Mora, Primo Antonio Serrano-Tellez
But see United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 976-78 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2436 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1321 (1983) (border search doctrine extends to searches of individuals leaving the country). 5 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Loran Cole v. State of Florida
Id. at 1422 (quoting McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961, 963 (1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kern
Racial discrimination in the selection of juries harms the excluded juror by denying this opportunity to participate in the administration of justice, and it harms society by impairing the integrity of the criminal trial process (Batson v Kentucky, 476 US, at 87-88 , supra; McCray v Abrams, 461 US 961, 968 [Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari]; Ballard v United States, 329 US 187, 195 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mathews v. State
(2×)
See Williams v. Illinois, 466 U.S. 981 [, 104 S.Ct. 2364 , 80 L.Ed.2d 836 ] (1984) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Gilliard v. Mississippi, 464 U.S. 867 [, 104 S.Ct. 40 , 78 L.Ed.2d 179 ] (1983); (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); M c Cray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961, 963 [, 103 S.Ct. 2438, 2439 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 ] (1983) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Miller v. O'LEARY
(2×)
Id., 461 U.S. at 963, 103 S.Ct. at 2439.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Wiley
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Justices Marshall and Brennan noted that the guarantee of “an impartial jury” had already been construed to encompass the requirement that the jury represent a “fair cross-section” of the community and that the exclusion of a particular race from jury service simply “because of their race ‘contravenes the very idea of a jury [as] a body truly representative of the community____’” McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. at 967, 103 S.Ct. at 2442 (quoting Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. at 528 , 95 S.Ct. at 696 .) Therefore, Justices Marshall and Brennan dissented from the denial of certiorar…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Thompson v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Second, the admirable intent of three of my colleagues in acknowledging the import of the issue but deferring our review "to allow the various States to serve as laboratories in which the issue receives further study," see McCray, supra, 461 U.S., at 963, 103 S.Ct., at 2439 (opinion of STEVENS, J., joined by BLACKMUN and POWELL, JJ.), has spawned confusion not clarification in the courts below. 1 * Swain is an anomaly, a departure from two fundamental principles of constitutional law.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Illinois; Dixon v. Illinois; Yates v. Illinois
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
McCray v. New York, 461 U. S. 961, 961-962 (1983) (opinion of Stevens, J., joined by Blackmun and Powell, JJ.); id., at 966-967 (Marshall, J., joined by Brennan, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. Texas
See Williams v. Illinois, 466 U. S. 981 (1984) (Marshall, J., dissenting); Gilliard v. Mississippi, 464 U. S. 867 (1983) (Marshall, J., dissenting); McCray v. New York, 461 U. S. 961, 963 (1983) (Marshall, J., dissenting).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Gilliard v. Mississippi
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
McCray v. New York, supra, at 966-970 (Marshall, J., dissenting); see Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522 (1975); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
Patricia Hart v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration
See McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961, 963 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983) (Stevens, J., respecting denial of petitions for writs of certiorari) (“[I]t is a sound exercise of discretion for the Court to allow [other courts] to serve as laboratories in which the issue receives further study before it is addressed by this Court.”).
cited
Cited "see"
George McCrory v. Robert J. Henderson, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, Hon. Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York
See McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983)(opinion of Stevens, J.); id. at 963 , 103 S.Ct. at 2439 (opinion of Marshall, J., dissenting from the denial of cert.).
cited
Cited "see"
Larry Brown v. Walter Kelly, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility
See People v. McCray, 57 N.Y.2d 542, 546-49 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 441 , 443 N.E.2d 915 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Albert Pitts v. James Cook, Warden and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama Mr. Don Siegelman
(2×)
See McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983) (denial of certiorari).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles David Keller
See United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 975 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2436 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1321 (1983). 5 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Mario Biaggi, Stanley Simon, Richard Biaggi, Peter Neglia, John Mariotta, and Bernard Ehrlich
See United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 841 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2437 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. SUPERIOR CT IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY.
See Perry v. Louisiana, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983); Roman v. Abrams, 822 F.2d 214 (2d Cir.1987); Booker v. Jabe, 775 F.2d 762 (6th Cir.1985) (discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violates sixth amendment), on remand, 801 F.2d 871 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1046 , 107 S.Ct. 910 , 93 L.Ed.2d 860 (1987); Wiley, 144 Ariz. at 543 , 698 P.2d at 1262 (Feld-man, J., specially concurring).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Muzamal Chaudhry, A/K/A Omar Muzamal
See United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 848 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2437 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Steven Max Safirstein
See United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 978 (9th Cir.1982) (recovery of over statutory amount justified strip search at border in currency exporting case), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2436 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1321 (1983). 31 U.S.C. § 5317 (b) 1 construed both in light of its history 2 and its interpre *1384 tation by other courts 3 , requires only “reasonable cause” and does not require probable cause in order to sustain the searches and seizures it contemplates.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Biaggi
See United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2437 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Bernard Hawkins
See United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 835 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2437 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Heinz Golitschek
See United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 843 (2d Cir.1982) (“Perhaps at some point deliberate governmental efforts to render ambiguous events over which agents can exercise considerable control would transgress due process limits of fundamental fairness.”), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2437 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Jerome Bowden v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent
See McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Batson v. Kentucky
Since the Fourteenth Amendment protects an accused throughout the proceedings bringing him to justice, Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 406 (1942), the State may not draw up its jury lists pursuant to neutral procedures but then resort to discrimination at "other stages in the selection process," Avery v. Georgia, 345 U. S. 559, 562 (1953); see McCray v. New York, supra, at 965 , 968 *89 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); see also Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U. S. 625, 632 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eugene Leslie
(2×)
See McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 2442 n. 7, 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 , 188 n. 6, 101 S.Ct. 1629 , 1634 n. 6, 68 L.Ed.2d 22 (1981); Swain, 380 U.S. at 219 , 85 S.Ct. at 835 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. George Whiting, and Theodore Whiting
See United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2436 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1321 (1983); United States v. Stanley, 545 F.2d 661, 665-67 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 917 , 98 S.Ct. 2261 , 56 L.Ed.2d 757 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Forrest Andrew Jordan v. Ray Lippman, Warden, and Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General for the State of Georgia
See McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983) (opinion of Stephens, J., with whom Blackmun, J. and Powell, J. join, respecting the denial of the petitions for writs of certiorari); id. 461 U.S. at 963 , 103 S.Ct. at 2439 , 77 L.Ed.2d at 1323 (Marshall, J., with whom Brennan, J. joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nevius v. State
State v. Stewart, 591 P.2d 166 (Kan. 1979); Lawrence v. State, 444 A.2d 478 (Md.App. 1982), aff’d, 457 A.2d 1127 (Md. 1983); State v. *247 Sims, 639 S.W.2d 105 (Mo.App. 1982); Commonwealth v. Henderson, 438 A.2d 951 (Pa. 1981); State v. Ucero, 450 A.2d 809 (R.I. 1982); State v. Grady, 286 N.W.2d 607 (Wis.App. 1979); see People v. McCray, 443 N.E.2d 915 (N.Y. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 (1983), (not mentioning Wheeler but rejecting the Wheeler approach); cf. Doepel v. United States, 434 A.2d 449 (D.C.App. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1037 (1981), (judging Swain dispositive).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eugene Leslie
See McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 2442 n. 7, 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 , 188 n. 6, 101 S.Ct. 1629 , 1634 n. 6, 68 L.Ed.2d 22 (1981); Swain, 380 U.S. at 219 , 85 S.Ct. at 835 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Williams
See dissent from denial of certiorari in McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Parker
The inquiry should “turn on whether the governmental conduct, standing alone, is so-offensive that it ‘shocks the conscience’ regardless of the extent to which it led the defendant to commit his crime.’” United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194, 218-19 (2d Cir.2013) (quoting United States v. Chin, 934 F.2d 393, 398 (2d Cir.1991)), cert. denied, - U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 53 , 190 L.Ed.2d 55 (2014); see also United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 836 (2d Cir.1982) (“due process claim focuses on the conduct of the government agents”), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2437 , 2438, 77…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brice v. State
Sometimes such an order reflects nothing more than a conclusion that a particular case may not constitute an appropriate forum in which to decide a significant issue.”) (citation omitted); see also Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 , 115 S.Ct. 1421 , 131 L.Ed.2d 304 (1995) (Mem.) (Stevens, J.) (“Often a denial of certio-rari on a novel issue will permit the state and federal courts to 'serve as laboratories in which the issue receives further study before it is addressed by this Court.’ ”) (quoting McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983)). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vernon Lee Evans, Jr. v. Willie Smith, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland
Compare Batson, 476 U.S. at 82 n. 1, 92 n. 17, 97, 98 n. 20, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , with Evans, 499 A.2d at 1281 . 1 The Maryland court also pointed to a number of other state cases employing a Bat-son-like framework and noted that in commenting on the denial of certiorari in McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983), five Justices indicated that the time might be approaching for a reexamination of Swain, See Evans, 499 A.2d at 1281 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Page
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir.1982), cert denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2437 , 2438, 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983) (The "Abscam" cases: four Congressmen were convicted of bribery hidden cameras showed them accepting money.). [7] Second, and despite the view of most of our sister jurisdictions, it is possible to make a reasonable case against secret participant-monitored audio recording based on the potential danger that this practice will inhibit speech.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Arizona v. Evans
(2×)
See, e. g., McCray v. New York, 461 U. S. 961, 961-963 (1983) (Stevens, J., respecting denial of petitions for writs of certiorari) ("My vote to deny certiorari in these cases does not reflect disagreement with Justice Marshall's appraisal of the importance of the underlying issue .. . .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cuervelo, Omaira Gomez-Galvis, Antonio Jaramillo, Sigfredo Mejia Sanchez, Jose Fernando Cardona, Luis Alberto Correa, Cesar Bravo
See United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1098 (2d Cir.1980); see also United States v. Myers, 527 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (E.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd, 692 F.2d 823 , 839 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2347 , 2348, 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jairo Alzate-Restreppo
(2×)
Compare United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 976 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2436 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1321 (1983) ("exculpatory no" exception not allowed where defendant did more than merely say no, but added affirmative statements) with United States v. Myers, 878 F.2d at 1143 (exception allowed even though the statement was a detailed story made up to avoid penalties and prosecution). 61 What is also noteworthy about this circuit's recent opinions allowing the "exculpatory no" defense is that in each the defendant has been in a postarrest or detention status.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
S.D. v. Faulkner
See, e.g., Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Auth., 690 F.2d 601, 611 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983); Crosby v. Bowling, 683 F.2d 1068, 1072 (7th Cir.1982); Clay, 583 F.Supp. at 1317 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Brown
Moreover, the court did not err in refusing to grant the defendant’s request for additional peremptory challenges (see, CPL 270.25; People v Gantz, 104 AD2d 692 ; People v Fox, 99 Misc 2d 1061 ; see also, People v McCray, 57 NY2d 542, 546, n 2 , cert denied 461 US 961 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Michael James Olsowy
Compare United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 975 (9th Cir.1982) (“[t]here is no reason that [a defendant] cannot be charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 simply because another statute is also applicable”), ce rt. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2436 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1321 (1983); with United States v. Rose, 570 F.2d 1358, 1363 (9th Cir.1978) (convictions under both 18 U.S.C. § 542 and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 redundant where based on exactly the same utterances).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blair v. Washington State University
(2×)
See also Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Auth., 690 F.2d 601, 613 (7th Cir.1982) ("[t]he notion that fee awards should be reduced where they are to be paid to not-for-profit organizations has been rejected by every court of appeals to consider it"), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Michael James Olsowy
Compare United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 975 (9th Cir.1982) (“[t]here is no reason that [a defendant] cannot be charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 simply because another statute is also applicable”), ce rt. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2436 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1321 (1983); with United States v. Rose, 570 F.2d 1358, 1363 (9th Cir.1978) (convictions under both 18 U.S.C. § 542 and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 redundant where based on exactly the same utterances).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dario Arteaga
See also United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 845-46 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2437 -38, 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983). 14 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Evans v. State
See also McCrary v. New York, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983); McCray v. Abrams, 750 F.2d 1113 (2d Cir.1984); People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 , 148 Cal. Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 (1978); Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461 , 387 N.E.2d 499 (1979); State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1984); People v. Mack, 105 Ill.2d 103 , 85 Ill.Dec. 281 , 473 N.E.2d 880 (1984); State v. Crespin, 94 N.M. 486 , 612 P.2d 716 (N.M.Ct.App. 1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Klayminc
United States v. Kelly, 707 F.2d 1460, 1473 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 908 , 104 S.Ct. 264 , 78 L.Ed.2d 247 (1983); see also United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 843 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2437 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983); Blecker, Beyond 1984: Undercover in America--Serpico to Abscam, 28 N.Y.L.Sch.L.Rev. 823, 975-82 (1984). 1 44 Another factor to be considered in a case such as this is whether the court should refuse to approve an ongoing investigation in which lawyers may have previously violated ethical norms (as it appears, concededly in hindsight, Vuit…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States ex rel. Vuitton Et Fils S.A. v. Klayminc
United States v. Kelly, 707 F.2d 1460, 1473 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 908 , 104 S.Ct. 264 , 78 L.Ed.2d 247 (1983); see also United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 843 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2437 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983); Blecker, Beyond 1984: Undercover in America — Serpico to Abscam, 28 N.Y.L.Sch.L.Rev. 823, 975-82 (1984). 1 Another factor to be considered in a case such as this is whether the court should refuse to approve an ongoing investigation in which lawyers may have previously violated ethical norms (as it appears, con-cededly in hindsight, Vui…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jessie Gonzalez-Mares
See, e.g., United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 976 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2436 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1321 (1983); United States v. Moore, 638 F.2d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1113 , 101 S.Ct. 924 , 66 L.Ed.2d 842 (1981) (“It is doubtful whether the exculpatory no defense has any validity within this Circuit____”) (dicta); Tzantarmas v. United States, 402 F.2d 163, 167 (9th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 966 , 89 S.Ct. 1312 , 22 L.Ed.2d 569 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Deitchman
(2×)
See also McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983) (Justices Stevens, Blackmun, and Powell withheld votes sufficient to have granted a petition for writ of certiorari concerning defense objections to prosecution use of peremptory challenges which had the effect of excluding jurors by reason of their race.
Duncan
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 82-6668.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 31, 1983.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.