green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.3 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
"trial court did not abuse its discretion in not declaring a mistrial"
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Randolph Williams
trial court did not abuse its discretion in not declaring a mistrial
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sandy Ealy v. Talmadge Littlejohn
(2×)
E. g., Doran, supra, 442 U.S. at 931-32, 95 S.Ct. at 2567 , 45 L.Ed.2d at 659-60 ; Buchanan v. United States Postal Service, 5 Cir., 1975, 508 F.2d 259, 266 .
cited
Cited "see"
Garret E. Nichols v. State of Arkansas
See Brenneman v. State, 264 Ark. 460 , 573 S.W.2d 47 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Thaddeus Lawrence Lach
See United States v. Lyman, 592 F.2d 496, 498-99 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. John Maturo, Joseph Samuel Pontillo
See Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2862 , 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brown
See Brenneman v. State, 264 Ark. 460 , 573 S.W.2d 47, 52 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2863 , 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979) (where only witnesses to testify at suppression hearing were two sheriffs testifying for the state, and trial judge could have found that the positions of the parties were adequately revealed by the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses, denial of argument was not an abuse of discretion); Matter of E.B., 111 Wis.2d 175 , 330 N.W.2d 584 , 592 (1983) (although closing argument may be desirable in a suppression hearing, the decision to allow it is a matt…
cited
Cited "see"
Williams v. Chrans
See generally People v. Edwards, 74 Ill.2d 1 , 23 Ill.Dec. 73 , 383 N.E.2d 944 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2862 , 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bruce Milton Mack
(2×)
See United States v. Lyman, 592 F.2d 496, 498-99 (9th Cir.1978) (defendant abandoned question of whether material was subject to disclosure under Jencks Act by failing to pursue question and obtain decision by district court), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2864 , 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979); Lewis v. United States, 340 F.2d 678, 682 (8th Cir.1965) (“it is defendant’s responsibility to invoke the Jencks Act at the proper time and in a proper manner so that a trial court will have a specific opportunity to rule on the applicability of the request”).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Ramos
See State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416, 419 , 387 A.2d 643, 645 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 (1979); see also State v. Arthur, 118 N.H. at 563, 391 A.2d at 885 .
cited
Cited "see"
Vanderkamp v. State
See Brenneman & King v. State, 264 Ark. 460, 471 , 573 S.W.2d 47 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jerry Miller
See United States v. Fleming, 594 F.2d 598, 609 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2863 , 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979). 2 While we have never addressed the propriety of punishment under the third clause of subsection (e) in the escape context when the defendant has been previously *792 convicted under subsections (a) or (d), 3 we have held that the “clear import of the Supreme Court’s holding in Prince was that a person should not be punished twice for a single unlawful transaction.” Bryan v. United States, 721 F.2d 572, 574 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1038 , 104 S.Ct.…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Nieuwenhuis
See Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336 , 341 n. 11 and 12 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2862 , 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979); 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (4).
cited
Cited "see"
People v. Martinez
See People v. Edwards (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 1, 8 , 383 N.E.2d 944 , cert. denied (1979), 442 U.S. 931 , 61 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ivan W. Brown and Gordon M. Kenngott
See United States v. Fleming, 594 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2863 , 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979). *1147 Third, Kenngott complains that his attorney allowed the prosecution to use tapes of two telephone conversations against Kenngott at trial without .attempting to ensure that the government had complied with the requirements of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Denny
See United States v. Fleming, 594 F.2d 598, 604 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Hilda Escobar De Bright
(2×)
United States v. Noah, 475 F.2d 688, 697 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1095 ; 94 S.Ct. 728 , 38 L.Ed.2d 553 (1973) (citing Perkins v. United States, 315 F.2d 120, 124 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 916 , 84 S.Ct. 201 , 11 L.Ed.2d 155 (1963)); see United States v. Lyman, 592 F.2d 496, 504 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2864 , 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979); Charron v. United States, 412 F.2d 657, 660 (9th Cir.1969); Baker v. United States, 310 F.2d 924, 930 (9th Cir.1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 954 , 83 S.Ct. 952 , 9 L.Ed.2d 978 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Roy L. Williams, Thomas F. O'malley, Andrew G. Massa, Joseph Lombardo
See United States v. Fleming, 594 F.2d 598, 608 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2863 , 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979); see also United States v. Norton, 700 F.2d 1072, 1076 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1885 , 76 L.Ed.2d 814 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Lovely
See State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416 , 387 A.2d 643 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Spalliero
See, United States v. Lyman, 592 F.2d 496 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2684 , 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979) (withdrawing 20 of 24 alleged overt acts in conspiracy).
cited
Cited "see"
Walter J.D. Moffett v. Roland E. McCauley John R. Gagnon, and Ronald L. Paul
See United States v. Fleming, 594 F.2d 598 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2863 , 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979); IV Wigmore on Evidence § 1076 at 155-56 (Chadbourn rev. 1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bahr
(2×)
See United States v. Lyman, 592 F.2d 496, 500-501 (9th Cir.1978) cert. denied 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2864 , 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Miskolczi
“A three-pronged examination is in order: first, was the evidence material to the question of guilt or the degree of punishment; second, was the defendant prejudiced by its destruction; and third, was the government acting in good faith when it destroyed the evidence.” United States v. Picariello, 568 F.2d 222, 227 (1st Cir. 1978); see State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416, 419-20 , 387 A.2d 643, 645 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 (1979) (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112-13 (1976)) (evidence is material when it creates reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Marvin J. Zylstra
See United States v. Fleming, 594 F.2d 598, 606-07 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2863 , 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979); and United States v. Phillips, 640 F.2d 87, 92 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 991 , 101 S.Ct. 2331 , 68 L.Ed.2d 851 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Luis Albert Alicea v. John R. Gagnon, Superintendent, and the Attorney General of Wisconsin
See United States v. Fleming, 594 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2863 , 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kozak
See Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2862 , 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979); United States v. Morrow, 537 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 956 , 97 S.Ct. 1602 , 51 L.Ed.2d 806 (1977); cf. United States v. Morrison, 12 M.J. 272 (C.M.A. 1982). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. United States
(2×)
Consistent with Miller , however, we conclude that a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to indictment by a grand jury will not be violated, regardless of whether the indictment is narrowed before, during, or after trial, as long as the narrowed indictment is not prejudicial to the defendant, i.e., as long as it “alleges the essential elements of the charged offense, sufficiently informs the defendant of the charges which he [or she] must defend, enables him [or her] to plead it to bar further prosecutions for the same offense, and does not broaden the charges against the defendant.” Unite…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Michael T. Conners, Larry James Rieger
(2×)
See also United States v. Lyman, 592 F.2d 496, 498-99 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2864 , 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979) (Jencks Act issue abandoned where defense counsel failed to pursue and obtain a decision on question); accord National Dairy Prods.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America Ex Rel. Alonzo Howard Jones v. Gayle M. Franzen, Illinois Penal Director and William J. Scott, Illinois Attorney General
See, also, this court’s opinions in United States v. Fleming, 594 F.2d 598, 603 , cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2863 , 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979); United States v. Spinks, 470 F.2d 64 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1011 , 93 S.Ct. 456 , 34 L.Ed.2d 305 (1972); United States ex rel.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Richard Murzyn, A/K/A \Mo Mo\"
See, e. g., United States v. Fleming, 594 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2863 , 61 L.Ed.2d 299 (1979); United States ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Grant
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 78-6466.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 11, 1979.
Published
Citer courts: D.C. Circuit (1)
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.