green
Positive treatment
11.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bereis
See State v. Plourde, 208 Conn. 455, 457 , 545 A.2d 1071 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S. Ct. 847 , 102 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Cromety
See State v. Plourde, *449 208 Conn. 455, 466 , 545 A.2d 1071 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S. Ct. 847 , 102 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fernando Belmontes, Pr v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, for the California State Prison at San Quentin
(2×)
See People v. Belmontes (“Belmontes I” ), 45 Cal.3d 744, 799 , 248 Cal. Rptr. 126 , 755 P.2d 310 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 848 , 102 L.Ed.2d 980 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. North
See Green v. Arn, 809 F.2d 1257, 1263 (6th Cir. 1987), vacated and remanded, 484 U.S. 806 (1987), judgment reinstated, 839 F.2d 300 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 (1989) (defense counsel absented himself during the victim’s cross-examination by counsel for a codefendant); McKnight v. State, 320 S.C. 356, 358-359 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Woodard, Unpublished Decision (9-18-2001)
See State v. Davis (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 44 , 50 , 584 N.E.2d 1192 , certiorari denied in Davis v. Ohio (1989), 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 849 , 102 L.Ed.2d 980 , which upheld Ohio's death penalty scheme.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Montgomery
Ed. 2d 86 (1980) (prearrest silence); see Wainwright v. Greenfield, supra, 291 n.6.” State v. Plourde, 208 Conn. 455, 465-66 , 545 A.2d 1071 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S. Ct. 847 , 102 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Morris
See State v. Wright, 756 S.W.2d 669, 673 (Tenn.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 848 , 102 L.Ed.2d 979 (1989)(where evidence showed two killings occurred within short period of time, precise sequence was not dispositive of whether aggravating circumstance was applicable); State v. Jones, 288 S.C. 1 , 340 S.E.2d 782, 784 (1985)(rape of second victim occurred after murder but aggravating circumstance applied because the offenses were a continuous series of acts with no significant lapse of time).
cited
Cited "see"
Manuel Pina Babbitt v. Jeanne Woodford, Acting Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin
See Babbitt v. California, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 849 , 102 L.Ed.2d 981 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Kiser
Ed. 2d 86 (1980) (prearrest silence); see Wainwright v. Greenfield, supra, 291 n.6.” State v. Plourde, 208 Conn. 455, 465-66 , 545 A.2d 1071 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S. Ct. 847 , 102 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Washington v. Johnson
Some earlier cases have treated a determination of competency as a finding of fact reviewable under a "clearly arbitrary or unwarranted standard." United States v. Fratus, 530 F.2d 644, 647 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 846 , 97 S.Ct. 130 , 50 L.Ed.2d 118 (1976); see Bundy v. Dugger, 850 F.2d 1402 , 1408 n. 5 (11th Cir.1988), ce rt. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 849 , 102 L.Ed.2d 980 (1989) (noting inconsistency and citing cases).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Timothy Alexander
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1988) (cross-examination permitted when "reasonably related to the issues the defendant put in dispute by his testimony on direct"), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 (1989); Jack B.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rojelio Hinojosa-Torres
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir.1988), ("Credibility determinations ... are matters left to the trier of fact."), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 and 489 U.S. 1029 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jackie Bernard Randolph
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 (1989), and cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1029 (1989); United States v. Contreras, 667 F.2d 976 , 978 n. 2 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 849 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Christopher Bryan Anderson
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1394 (9th Cir.1988) (describing as valid a jury instruction which did not instruct on foreseeability in situation where substantive offense was possession of cocaine and purpose of conspiracy was possession of cocaine with intent to distribute), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , and cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1029 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Linda Marie Conkins, United States of America v. Alfredo Amador Barragan, United States of America v. Alberto Valencia Barragan, United States of America v. Robert Leroy Sandvig, United States of America v. Jacqueline Louise Fogel, United States of America v. Richard Robert Farmer, United States of America v. Salvador Soto-Mendoza
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 847 , 102 L.Ed.2d 978 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Knight v. State
See Gardner v. State, 733 S.W.2d 195, 200 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 848 , 102 L.Ed.2d 979 (1989); Burks v. State, 792 S.W.2d 835, 840 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Agustin Aquino-Estrada, United States of America v. Taurino Ojeda-Jimenez, United States of America v. Miguel Colmenero-Perez
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Reynard Campbell
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir.1988) (untimely suppression motion), certs. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 489 U.S. 1029 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Luis Luciano Vera
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir.1988) ("Credibility determinations ... are matters left to the trier of fact."), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 and 489 U.S. 1029 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jesus Velasquez-Carbona
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1988), ce rt. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 847 , 102 L.Ed.2d 978 (1989); United States v. Johnson, 886 F.2d 1120, 1123 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1) may be maintained under a conspiracy theory). 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Marcus Arthur Fontaine, AKA Bob Mato, Robert McConihay Mike Furlong, Robert Matoni, John Grossman
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1988) cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 (1989). 14 We conclude that the district judge did not commit errors in evidentiary rulings which amounted, either individually or collectively, to abuse of discretion. 15 AFFIRMED. * The Honorable John W.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Linda Marie Conkins, United States of America v. Alfredo Amador Barragan, United States of America v. Alberto Valencia Barragan, United States of America v. Robert Leroy Sandvig, United States of America v. Jacqueline Louise Fogel, United States of America v. Richard Robert Farmer, United States of America v. Salvador Soto-Mendoza
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 847 , 102 L.Ed.2d 978 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Conkins
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 847 , 102 L.Ed.2d 978 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Matter of James Cable Partners, LP
See Goerg v. Parungao (In re Goerg), 844 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th *61 Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 850 , 102 L.Ed.2d 981 (1989) (federal bankruptcy law preempts state law).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Luis Gerardo Leon
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1393-94 (9th Cir.1988) (applying Pinkerton theory of possession), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 (1989). 7 This case is different from those in which Pinkerton is usually applied because the conspiracy was to purchase, not sell, cocaine.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Amjad Awan, Akbar A. Bilgrami, Sibte Hassan, Syed Aftab Hussain, Ian Howard
See Bundy v. Dugger, 850 F.2d 1402, 1426-27 (11th Cir.1988) (affirming refusal to excuse for cause a juror who had formed a negative opinion about the defendant but who could nonetheless be fair and impartial), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 849 , 102 L.Ed.2d 980 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jose Manuel Vigoa
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1988) (upholding the cross-examination of a defendant regarding narcotics in his apartment, on the basis that "[w]hat was in that apartment was a subject 'reasonably related' to [his] direct testimony"), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 and 489 U.S. 1029 (1989). 29 The cases cited by Vigoa are not on point.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jerry Span, United States of America v. Darlene Span
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir.1988) (credibility determinations should be made by the trier of fact and reviewed for clear error), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 847 , 102 L.Ed.2d 978 (1989), and cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1029 , 109 S.Ct. 1161 , 103 L.Ed.2d 220 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Barnes
See State v. Plourde, 208 Conn. 455, 471 , 545 A.2d 1071 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S. Ct. 847 , 102 L.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Hector Francisco Molina
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 847 , 102 L.Ed.2d 978 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Molina
See United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 847 , 102 L.Ed.2d 978 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fonck v. Town of Stratford
Because our decision regarding the third claim is dispositive of the case and the other two claims may not arise again in a new trial; see State v. Plourde, 208 Conn. 455 , 457 n.2, 545 A.2d 1071 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S. Ct. 847 , 102 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ruscoe
While we do not ordinarily review claims not raised below, we have recognized an exception “where the record adequately supports a claim that a litigant has clearly been deprived of a fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial.” State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 70 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973); see State v. Plourde, 208 Conn. 455, 462 , 545 A.2d 1071 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S. Ct. 847 , 102 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Thorpe
Silence under these circumstances is ‘‘insolubly ambiguous’’; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Lockhart, 298 Conn. 537, 580 , 4 A.3d 1176 (2010); and, although ‘‘Miranda warnings contain no express assurance that silence will carry no penalty, such assur- ance is implicit . . . . [I]t [therefore] would be funda- mentally unfair and a deprivation of due process to allow the arrested person’s silence to be used to impeach [him] . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Id., 580–81; see also State v. Plourde, 208 Conn. 455 , 466–67, 545 A.2d 1071 (1988) (ext…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ciullo
See, e.g., State v. Monahan, 125 Conn. App. 113 , 118 n.7, 7 A.3d 404 (2010), cert. denied, 299 Conn. 926 , 11 A.3d 152 (2011); State v. Bereis, 117 Conn. App. 360, 364-65 , 978 A.2d 1122 (2009); see also State v. Plourde, 208 Conn. 455, 457 , 545 A.2d 1071 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S. Ct. 847 , 102 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lall
(2×)
Id. at 1548 ; see United States v. Contreras, 667 F.2d 976 , 978 n. 2 (11th Cir.1982); United States v. Hicks, 524 F.2d 1001, 1003 (5th Cir.1975); see also United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 847 , 102 L.Ed.2d 978 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Walker v. State
See, e.g„ Green v. Arn, 809 F.2d 1257, 1259-64 (6th Cir.1987), vacated, 484 U.S. 806 , 108 S.Ct. 52 , 98 L.Ed.2d 17 (1987), reinstated, 839 F.2d 300 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 847 , 102 L.Ed.2d 979 (1989) (holding that absence of defense counsel during cross-examination of key government witness by attorney for a co-defendant was presumptively prejudicial). 11 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Colon
See, e.g., People v. Robbins, 45 Cal. 3d 867, 889 , 755 P.2d 355 , 248 Cal. Rptr. 172 (1988) (in light of defendant’s opportunity to present evidence and to take stand to address jury during sentencing phase of capital trial, “we fail to see the need, much less a constitutional requirement, for a corresponding right to address the sentencer without being subject to cross-examination” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S. Ct. 849 , 102 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Samantha C.
In both situations, the State gives warnings to protect constitutional rights and implicitly promises that any exercise of those rights will not be penalized.” [Internal quotation marks omitted.]); see also State v. Plourde, 208 Conn. 455, 467 , 545 A.2d 1071 (1988) (custody not prerequisite to Doyle violation where Miranda warnings have been given), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S. Ct. 847 , 102 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Haarhuis v. Kunnan Enterprises, Ltd.
See, e.g., In re Goerg, 844 F.2d 1562, 1568 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 850 , 102 L.Ed.2d 981 (1989). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mathis
See United States v. Crosby, 739 F.2d 1542, 1548 (11th Cir.) (citing United States v. Marx, 635 F.2d 436, 440-441 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) and United States v. Contreras, 667 F.2d 976 , 978 n. 2 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 849 , 103 S.Ct. 109 , 74 L.Ed.2d 97 (1982)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1076 , 105 S.Ct. 576 , 83 L.Ed.2d 515 (1984); see also United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir.1988), ce rt. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 847 , 102 L.Ed.2d 978 and 489 U.S. 1029 , 109 S.Ct. 1161 , 103 L.Ed.2d 220 (1989); 3 Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Crimina…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William Aramony, United States of America v. Stephen J. Paulachak, United States of America v. Thomas J. Merlo
See also United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1988) (concluding that an instruction nearly identical to the one given by the district court here was a valid Pinkerton instruction), cer t. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 847 , 102 L.Ed.2d 978 (1989); Manzella, 791 F.2d at 1268 (stating that a Pinkerton instruction which was nearly identical to the instruction given by the district court here “contain[ed] every element of the Pinkerton doctrine, arrayed in an order calculated to maximize the likelihood that the jury will grasp this complicated concept”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Wischhusen
See, e.g., Green v. Arn, 809 F.2d 1257, 1261 (6th Cir.1987), vacated on other grounds, 484 U.S. 806 , 108 S.Ct. 52 , 98 L.Ed.2d 17 (1987), reinstated, 839 F.2d 300 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 847 , 102 L.Ed.2d 979 (1989); Spencer v. State, 85 Wis.2d 565 , 271 N.W.2d 25, 29 (1978); Headen v. United States, 373 A.2d 599, 601 (D.C.1977); People v. Rainwater, 207 Ill.App.3d 1096 , 152 Ill.Dec. 945, 948 , 566 N.E.2d 822, 825 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Conti, No. Cr (Jan. 27, 1995)
"Due to the questionable accuracy of the results of polygraph examinations, this court has consistently held that they are not admissible either for substantive or impeachment purposes." State v. Duntz, 223 Conn. 207 , 613 A.2d 224 (1992); see also, State v. Plourde, 208 Conn. 455 , 471 , 545 A.2d 1071 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 847 , 102 L.Ed.2d 979 (1989); State v. Miller, supra, 484.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kuk Mo Yang
See United States v. Soares, 998 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 927 (1994); see also United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir.1988) (district court in unique position to observe the demeanor of both the defendant and law-enforcement officer), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 (1989), and cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1029 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Martin Romero-Camilo
See United States v. Soares, 998 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 927 (1994); see also United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir.1988) (district court in unique position to observe the demeanor of both the defendant and police officer), cert. denied 488 U.S. 1034 (1989), and cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1029 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hutchison
(2×)
Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988), appeal from rem., 905 F.2d 458 (1990); United States v. Snider, 720 F.2d 985, 992 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1107 , 104 S.Ct. 1613 , 80 L.Ed.2d 142 (1984) ("To be admissible, the statements must somehow advance the objectives of the conspiracy, not merely inform the listener of the declarant's activities.") [7] See United States v. Andrews, 765 F.2d 1491, 1500-1501 (11th Cir.1985), reh'g den, 772 F.2d 918 , cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1064 , 106 S.Ct. 815 , 88 L.Ed.2d 789 (1986); Eder v. People, 179 Colo. 12…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Nunez
See note 9 infra; see also United States v. ___ _____ ___ ____ _____________ 8 Even though appellate courts on occasion have implied relief from waiver under Rule 12(f) where the trial court pro- ceeds to address the suppression issue on the merits, see, e.g., ___ ____ United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir. 1988), ______________ _______ cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 (1989); contra United States v. ____ ______ ______ ______________ Oldfield, 859 F.2d 392, 396-98 (6th Cir. 1988), we have not had ________ occasion, nor are we disposed, sua sponte, to conjure relief from ___ ______ …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Havelock v. Taxel (In Re Pace)
See, e.g., In re Goerg, 844 F.2d 1562, 1565-66 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 850 , 102 L.Ed.2d 981 (1989) (decedents’ estates ineligible for relief under the Bankruptcy Code); In re Estate of Whiteside by Whiteside, 64 B.R. 99, 101 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.1986) (probate estate ineligible for relief); In re Johnson, 82 B.R. 618 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1988) (family trust ineligible for relief); In re St.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Marion F. Miller, Jr. v. Robert G. Borg
See id.; see also Bundy v. Dugger, 850 F.2d 1402, 1416-20 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 (1989); Harker v. Maryland, 800 F.2d 437, 443 (4th Cir.1986). 9 Miller next contends that the trial court violated state sentencing law when it (1) "relied on dual use of facts in imposing consecutive sentences" and (2) imposed consecutive sentences on certain counts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Connecticut
v.
Plourde
v.
Plourde
No. 88-834.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 17, 1989.
488 U.S. 1034
Published
Sup. Ct. Conn. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.