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
35 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Green, No. 98-3242 (10th Cir. Nov. 17, 1998)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
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....no pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
  • United States v. Lane, 194 F. Supp. 2d 758 (N.D. Ill. 2002).published 3 cites
    (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....)
  • United States v. Santos, 65 F. Supp. 2d 802 (N.D. Ill. 1999).published 3 cites
    (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-)
At page 1306 Determining eligibility for bond pending certiorari review1 citing casestating that if release is to be based on reversal, defendant must show that all counts for which imprisonment was imposed will be affected1 citing court put it this way
  • United States v. Green, No. 98-3242 (10th Cir. Nov. 17, 1998).unpublished
    (stating that if release is to be based on reversal, defendant must show that all counts for which imprisonment was imposed will be affected)
Other citing cases4 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
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.
Published opinion
486 U.S. 1306
1988 U.S. LEXIS 2484
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.