Kenneth David Brooks v. United States, 449 F.2d 1296 (9th Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Kenneth David Brooks v. United States, 449 F.2d 1296 (9th Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Spina v. Forest Preserve District of Cook County (ilnd, 2002-05-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spina v. Forest Preserve District of Cook County
N.D. Ill. · 2002 · confidence medium
Corp., 449 F.2d 1296, 1297 (5th Cir.1971) (noting that an order declaring a mistrial is interlocutory and not appealable as a final judgment.) Rule 50(a) does not assist Mr. Nudell either, because the Motion was filed after the case was submitted to Jury B, and, importantly, not “during a trial by jury.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(2).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mann v. Hutchinson
10th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Corp. , 449 F.2d 1296, 1297 (5th Cir. 1971) (order granting mistrial is interlocutory and not appealable as a final judgment).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sheffield v. Larsen
10th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 186 (1995) (mistrial) (citing Esneault v. Waterman Steamship Corp. , 449 F.2d 1296, 1297 (5th Cir. 1971)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paul Sheffield v. Bill Larsen, Individually and in His Official Capacity Brad Blair, Individually and in His Official Capacity
10th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
See Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 , 101 S.Ct. 188 , 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980) (new trial); 4 Am.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 186 (1995) (mistrial) (citing Esneault v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 449 F.2d 1296, 1297 (5th Cir.1971)).
cited Cited "see" Carlson v. Locatelli
Nev. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Esneault v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 449 F.2d 1296, 1297 (5th Cir. 1971); In re Estate of Bartholomae, 68 Cal.Rptr. 332, 333-34 (Cal.Ct.App. 1968); see also 15B Charles A. Wright, Arthur R.
cited Cited "see" Martinez v. Winner
D. Colo. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Esneault v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 449 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Kaufman, 311 F.2d 695, 698-699 (2d Cir. 1963); Gilmore v. United States, 264 F.2d 44, 47 (5th Cir. 1959).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kenneth David BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee
26704_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 8, 1971.
449 F.2d 1296
Stephen D. Miller (argued), Miller, Glassman & Browning, Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant-appellant., Earl Boyd, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., John F. Walter, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Chambers, Choy, Battin.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The order denying Brooks’ petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without an eviden-tiary hearing is affirmed.

A letter of doubtful value to the prosecution is claimed to have been admitted improperly on cross-examination of the defendant because of an alleged illegal search. The point was first raised by Brooks in the District Court in this proceeding. On the trial of the case, the objection was that the letter was hearsay. We think, assuming arguendo illegal search, under Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1, the trial judge in his discretion properly admitted the letter if it met trustworthy standards, which it would.