Morison v. United States, 486 U.S. 1306 (1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Morison v. United States, 486 U.S. 1306 (1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Green (ca10, 1998-11-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Green
10th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
See § 3143(b)(1)(B)(i) & (iv); Morison v. United States, 486 U.S. 1306, 1306 (1988) (stating that if release is to be based on reversal, defendant must show that all counts for which imprisonment was imposed will be affected); United States v. Rutter, 897 F.2d 1558, 1562 (10th Cir. 1990) (allowing court to consider relevant conduct in determining the applicable guideline range, including additional amounts of drugs for which defendant was not convicted). -2- 2 Mr. Green also failed to allege any exceptional circumstances at the hearing on the matter, thus the district court’s finding that n…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Burk (2×)
D. Me. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Morison v. United States, 486 U.S. 1306, 1306-07 , 108 S.Ct. 1837 , 100 L.Ed.2d 594 (1988); United States v. Colon Berrios, 791 F.2d 211, 215 (1st Cir.1986).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Lane (2×)
N.D. Ill. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
Thus, Lane must do more than show that an error occurred at trial; he must persuade the court that “the appellate court is more likely than not to reverse the conviction or order a new trial on all counts for which imprisonment has been imposed.” Bilanzich, 771 F.2d at 298 ; see also Morison v. United States, 486 U.S. 1306, 1306-07 , 108 S.Ct. 1837 , 100 L.Ed.2d 594 (1988) (denying bond application for appeal to Supreme Court where the petitioner had “not shown that his appeal [was] likely to result in reversal with respect to all the counts for which imprisonment was imposed.... ”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Santos (2×)
N.D. Ill. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
Thus, the defendant must do more than show that an error occurred at trial; she must persuade the district court that “the appellate court is more likely than not to reverse the conviction or order a new trial on all counts for which imprisonment has been imposed.” Bilanzich, 771 F.2d at 298 (emphasis added); see also Morison v. United States, 486 U.S. 1306, 1306-07 , 108 S.Ct. 1837 , 100 L.Ed.2d 594 (1988) (denying bond' application for appeal to Supreme Court where the petitioner had “not shown that his appeal [was] likely to result in reversal with respect’ to all the counts for whi…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Black (2×)
W.D.N.C. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Morison v. United States, 486 U.S. 1306 , 108 S.Ct. 1837 , 100 L.Ed.2d 594 (1988) (Rehnquist, C.J. sitting as Circuit Judge); United States v. Thompson, 787 F.2d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Giancola, 754 F.2d 898 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam). 1 A defendant that wishes to be released on bail pending appeal is required to come forward with a substantial question likely to result in reversal.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Masters (2×)
W.D.N.C. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
Nonetheless, other Circuits have consistently held that the term “substantial question” means a “close question or one that very well could be decided the other way.” United States v. Powell, 761 F.2d 1227, 1232 (8th Cir.1985); see also Morison v. United States, 486 U.S. 1306 , 108 S.Ct. 1837 , 100 L.Ed.2d 594 (1988) (Rehnquist, C.J. sitting as Circuit Judge); United States v. Thompson, 787 F.2d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Giancola, 754 F.2d 898 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam). 2 *690 A defendant that wishes to be released on bail pending appeal is required to come forward…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Hamrick
W.D.N.C. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Morrison v. United States, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1837 , 100 L.Ed.2d 594 (1988) (Rehnquist, C.J. sitting as Circuit Judge); United States v. Thompson, 787 F.2d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Giancola, 754 F.2d 898 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam). 1 A defendant that wishes to be released on bail pending appeal is required to come forward with a substantial question likely to result in reversal.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Samuel Loring Morison
v.
United States. No. A-896
A-896.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 2, 1988.
486 U.S. 1306
Rehnquist.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
Chief Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.

Samuel Loring Morison was convicted in the District Court of two counts each of espionage, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 793(d), (e), and theft of Government property, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 641. His conviction was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 844 F. 2d 1057 (1988), and he now asks that he be allowed to remain free on bond pending the consideration of his yet-to-be-filed petition for writ of certiorari. The statutory standard for determining whether a convicted defendant is entitled to be released pending a certiorari petition is clearly set out in 18 U. S. C. § 3143(b) (1982 ed., Supp. IV), and the only real issue in this application is whether Morison’s appeal “raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, an order for a new trial, or a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment.” I agree with the courts below, however, that regardless of whether Morison has raised a “substantial question” with respect to the propriety of his conviction under the Espionage Act, he has not done so with respect to his conviction for theft of Government property under §641. Because Morison has not shown that his appeal is “likely to result in reversal” with respect to all the counts for which imprisonment was imposed, see United [*1307] States v. Bayko, 774 F. 2d 516, 522 (CA1 1985), his application is denied.