green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.0 score
“charges of ... 'aiding and abetting' require the government to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant knew the specific nature of the ... underlying crime.”
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Tommy Cruz, Luis Rodriguez, Carlos Medina
charges of ... 'aiding and abetting' require the government to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant knew the specific nature of the ... underlying crime.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Samuels
See White v. Luebbers, 307 F.3d 722, 728 (8th Cir.2002) (noting that the government could exercise a peremptory challenge to excuse a potential juror who could not be removed for cause after he had been rehabilitated by the defense), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 981 , *1019 123 S.Ct. 1785 , 155 L.Ed.2d 671 (2003); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 97 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (“[T]he prosecutor’s explanation [for a peremptory strike] need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Santos
See United States v. Friedman, 300 F.3d 111, 126 (2d Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 981 , 123 S.Ct. 1785 , 155 L.Ed.2d 672 (2003); United States v. Samaria, 239 F.3d 228, 236-38 (2d Cir.2001); Atehortva, 17 F.3d at 551 ; United States v. Nusraty, 867 F.2d 759, 765 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lonegan v. Hasty
See United States v. Friedman, 300 F.3d 111, 120-23 (2d Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 981 , 123 S.Ct. 1785 , 155 *431 L.Ed.2d 672 (2003); United States v. Workman, 80 F.3d 688, 692-94 (2d Cir.1996), ce rt. denied, 519 U.S. 938 , 117 S.Ct. 319 , 136 L.Ed.2d 233 (1996) and 519 U.S. 955 , 117 S.Ct. 373 , 136 L.Ed.2d 262 (1996); United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 19-20 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1033 , 109 S.Ct. 846 , 102 L.Ed.2d 978 (1989); Amen, 831 F.2d at 378-80 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Mitchell Carlton Sims v. Jill Brown, Warden
(2×)
See 538 U.S. 975 , 123 S.Ct. 1785 , 155 L.Ed.2d 662 (citing Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202 , 123 S.Ct. 1398 , 155 L.Ed.2d 363 (2003)).
discussed
Cited "see"
William Charles Payton v. Jeanne Woodford, Warden, William Charles Payton v. Jeanne Woodford, Warden
(2×)
See Woodford v. Payton, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 1785 , 155 L.Ed.2d 662 (2003). 6 This opinion (" Payton II ") reflects our decision on remand. 1 Here, we apply the strict AEDPA standard to our analysis of Payton's habeas claims and conclude, as we did in Payton I, that the district court properly granted Payton's habeas petition.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Orlando v. Nassau Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Office
See, e.g., Thomas v. Hubbard , 273 F.3d 1164 , 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2001) (granting section 2254 petition due to Confrontation Clause violation and other constitutional errors, and stating that "[e]ven if the statements [we]re classified as non-hearsay, they are sufficiently prejudicial that the jury would be unable to consider them only for limited purposes and would consider them for their truth in violation of the Confrontation Clause") (abrogated on unrelated grounds by Payton v. Woodford , 299 F.3d 815 , 828-29 n.11 (9th Cir. 2002), which the Supreme Court then vacated, 538 U.S. 975 , 123 S.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Siddiq v. State
See United States v. Lewis, 406 F.3d 11, 16-18 (1st Cir.2005) (“In other words, the acquisition of the contents of a communication by an investigative or law[-]enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties is not an interception for [purposes of the federal wiretap statute].”), cert. denied, 548 U.S. 917 , 126 S.Ct. 2951 , 165 L.Ed.2d 973 (2006); see also United States v. Friedman, 300 F.3d 111, 122-23 (2d Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 981 , 123 S.Ct. 1785 , 155 L.Ed.2d 672 (2003); United States v. Hammond, 286 F.3d 189, 192 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 900 , 123 S.Ct.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Salinas
See, e.g., United States v. Ringer, 300 F.3d 788, 790-92 (7th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 981 , 123 S.Ct. 1785 , 155 L.Ed.2d 672 (2003); United States v. Candella, 487 F.2d 1223, 1227-28 (2d Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Igor Brunshtein, Also Known as \Mark
Id. at 16-20 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 ; see also United States v. Friedman, 300 F.3d 111, 127-28 (2d Cir.2002) (applying harmless error analysis to alleged omission of element *100 from jury instructions), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 1785 , 155 L.Ed.2d 672 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
William T. Coleman v. United States
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Friedman, 300 F.3d 111, 127-28 (2d Cir.2002) (holding that Apprendi error was "harmless"), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 1785 , 155 L.Ed.2d 672 (2003); Outen, 286 F.3d at 639-40 (holding that Apprendi error did not affect the defendant's "substantial rights"); see also United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 , 122 S.Ct. 1781, 1786 , 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) (holding that Apprendi error did not "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings"); cf. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (199…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
White
v.
Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center
v.
Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center
02-8405.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 21, 2003.
Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (1)
WHITE
v.
ROPER, SUPERINTENDENT, POTOSI CORRECTIONAL CENTER.
No. 02-8405.
Supreme Court of United States.
April 21, 2003.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
2
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 307 F. 3d 722.