green
Positive treatment
8.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Miller
In Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680 (1986), the Court held that “a criminal defendant states a violation of the Confrontation Clause by showing that he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness.” Some federal circuit courts of appeal have interpreted these decisions to mean that “cross-examination as to bias, motive or prejudice is constitutionally protected, but cross-examination as to general credibility is not.” Boggs, 226 F. 3d at 737 ; see Quinn v. Haynes, 234 F.3d 837, …
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Shanton
See Quinn v. Haynes, 234 F.3d 837, 843 (4th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1024 , 121 S.Ct. 1968 , 149 L.Ed.2d 762 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Willis, Rickey J.
See United States v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 807, 814 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1024 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rickey J. Willis
See United States v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 807, 814 (7th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1024 , 121 S.Ct. 1967 , 149 L.Ed.2d 761 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jose Martin Martinez
See United States v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 807, 813 (7th Cir.) (reviewing court gives special deference to findings based on credibility determinations, which can almost never be clear error), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1024 , 121 S.Ct. 1967 , 149 L.Ed.2d 761 (2001); United States v. Berthiaume, 233 F.3d 1000, 1002 (7th Cir.2000) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Martinez, Jose M.
See United States v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 807, 813 (7th Cir.) (reviewing court gives special deference to findings based on credibility determinations, which can almost never be clear error), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1024 (2001); United States v. Berthiaume, 233 F.3d 1000, 1002 (7th Cir. 2000) (same).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Vinette Crowley, Jerry Hallgren, and William Crowley
See United States v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 807, 813 (7th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1024 , 121 S.Ct. 1967 , 149 L.Ed.2d 761 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Crowley, Vinette B.
See United States v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 807, 813 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1024 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Phelix Frazier
See United States v. Melecio-Rodriguez, 231 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir.2000) (holding that post arrest statements made by coconspirator to law enforcement officer were not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), but admission of testimony was harmless because officer’s testimony was cumulative), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1024 , 121 S.Ct. 1968 , 149 L.Ed.2d 761 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Phelix Henry Frazier, Also Known as Towman, Also Known as Tow, Also Known as Phe, Also Known as Daddy, Also Known as Blue, Also Known as Reuben Matthews, United States of America v. Darren Thomas, Also Known as Dt, United States of America v. Joe Robinson, United States of America v. Phelix T. Frazier, Also Known as Little Phe, Also Known as Phe Phe
See United States v. Melecio-Rodriguez, 231 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir.2000) (holding that post arrest statements made by coconspirator to law enforcement officer were not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), but admission of testimony was harmless because officer's testimony was cumulative), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1024 , 121 S.Ct. 1968 , 149 L.Ed.2d 761 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Phelix Frazier
See United States v. Melecio-Rodriguez, 231 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir.2000) (holding that post arrest statements made by coconspirator to law enforcement officer were not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), but admission of testimony was harmless because officer’s testimony was cumulative), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1024 , 121 S.Ct. 1968 , 149 L.Ed.2d 761 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pedro J. Bosque
See also United States v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 807, 816 (7th Cir.2000), ce rt. denied, 532 U.S. 1024 , 121 S.Ct. 1967 , 149 L.Ed.2d 761 (2001) (district court’s decision to deny a downward departure is discretionary and not subject to the review of this court); United States v. Brumley, 217 F.3d 905, 913-14 (7th Cir.2000) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review a district court’s discretionary refusal to depart downward unless the sentence was imposed in violation of the law or as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bosque, Pedro J.
See also United States v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 807, 816 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1024 (2001) (district court’s decision to deny a down- ward departure is discretionary and not subject to the review of this court); United States v. Brumley, 217 F.3d 905, 913-14 (7th Cir. 2000) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review a district court’s discretionary refusal to de- part downward unless the sentence was imposed in vio- lation of the law or as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Poole
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 00-8485.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 14, 2001.
Published
C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.