green
Positive treatment
4.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. George F. Dillman and William C. Hatfield
See United States v. Rhodes, 569 F.2d 384, 388 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 844 , 99 S.Ct. 138 , 58 L.Ed.2d 143 (1978) (holding prosecutor had no Brady duty to disclose that a certain witness could not positively identify the defendant).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dillman
See United States v. Rhodes, 569 F.2d 384, 388 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 844 , 99 S.Ct. 138 , 58 L.Ed.2d 143 (1978) (holding prosecutor had no Brady duty to disclose that a certain witness could not positively identify the defendant). -12- Ms. Kopy's statement--to the effect that she did not remember the meeting--is neutral, not exculpatory or impeaching in nature.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Donald Eugene Staggs, United States of America v. Charles David Teafatiller, United States of America v. Peggy Savage Teafatiller, United States of America v. Frank E. Gabriel
See United States v. Rhodes, 569 F.2d 384, 389 (5th Cir.) (denial of marital privilege upheld when trial court found that no common law marriage existed under state law), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 844 , 99 S.Ct. 138 , 58 L.Ed.2d 143 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Staggs
See United States v. Rhodes, 569 F.2d 384, 389 (5th Cir.) (denial of marital privilege upheld when trial court found that no common law marriage existed under state law), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 844 , 99 S.Ct. 138 , 58 L.Ed.2d 143 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. William Lawrence Lentz and Raymond Clinton Hullum, Jr.
See United States v. Baldarrama, 566 F.2d 560 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 844 , 99 S.Ct. 140 , 58 L.Ed.2d 145 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rezaq
See, e.g., United States v. Rhodes, 569 F.2d 384, 388 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 844 , 99 S.Ct. 138 , 58 L.Ed.2d 143 (1978) (non-identification is not “obviously exculpatory” material that must be disclosed to a defendant who makes a non-specific Brady demand); United States v. Jones, 648 F.Supp. 225 , 240 n. 11 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (failures to identify are not obviously exculpatory).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Louis Miller, Jr.
(2×)
See, e.g., Beechum, 582 F.2d at 912 n. 15 (if prior act and charged act both involved white heroin which is extremely rare, the act might be distinctive enough to allow admission of the prior offense) (citing United States v. Baldarrama, 566 F.2d 560 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 844 , 99 S.Ct. 140 , 58 L.Ed.2d 145 (1978)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Johnson v. United States
See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 , 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3384 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (“evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different”); see also United States v. Rhodes, 569 F.2d 384, 388 (5th Cir.) (inability to identify is “of a neutral nature”), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 844 , 99 S.Ct. 138 , 58 L.Ed.2d 143 (1978); United States v. Palmer, 536 F.2d 1278, 1281 (9th Cir.1976) (inability to identify is not exculpatory).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Vampran
Compare United States v. Rhodes, 569 F.2d 384 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 439 U.S. 844 , 99 S.Ct. 138 , 58 L.Ed.2d 143 (1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Waites
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 77-6739.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 1978.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.