United States v. Ira Eugene Williams, John Thomas Taylor, Jr., 716 F.2d 864 (11th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Ira Eugene Williams, John Thomas Taylor, Jr., 716 F.2d 864 (11th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Bradley (ca11, 2011-06-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bradley
11th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
The district court’s discretion, however, is at its zenith when the alleged misconduct relates to “statements made by the jurors themselves, and not from media publicity or other outside influences.” Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.1980); see also Dominguez, 226 F.3d at 1246 ; United States v. Cuthel, 903 F.2d 1381, 1382 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. Williams, 716 F.2d 864, 865 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Yonn, 702 F.2d at 1344-45 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Martin J. Bradley, Jr.
11th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
The district court’s discretion, however, is at its zenith when the alleged misconduct relates to “statements made by the jurors themselves, and not from media publicity or other outside influences.” Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Dominguez, 226 F.3d at 1246 ; United States v. Cuthel, 903 F.2d 1381, 1382 (11th Cir. 1990); United States v. Williams, 716 F.2d 864, 865 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam); Yonn, 702 F.2d at 1344–45.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Dominguez
11th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.1980); Yonn, 702 F.2d at 1344-45 ; United States v. Williams, 716 F.2d 864, 865 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Cuthel, 903 F.2d 1381, 1382 (11th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Howard Jonas, Lewis Jonas, Anthony Lewis Guarino, and Howard Mark Mandel
11th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
The reviewing court went on to say, “A juror’s statement that ‘[from] what I have heard already he’s guilty’ at the conclusion of the prosecutor’s case and before the defendant presents any evidence does not reflect serious prejudice, but only an objective evaluation of the evidence presented to date in trial.” Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 346, 348 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 445 U.S. 953 , 100 S.Ct. 1605 , 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980), cited with approval United States v. Williams, 716 F.2d 864, 865 (11th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Caldwell
11th Cir. · 1985 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Williams, 716 F.2d 864, 865 (11th Cir.1983) (“district court was in the best position to determine whether the facts reflected by counsel’s statement as to the jury’s discussion of the ease prior to submission could be cured from error by instructions cert. denied, - U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2660 , 81 L.Ed.2d 366 (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. S. Sam Caldwell
11th Cir. · 1985 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Williams, 716 F.2d 864, 865 (11th Cir.1983) ("district court was in the best position to determine whether the facts reflected by counsel's statement as to the jury's discussion of the case prior to submission could be cured from error by instructions ..."), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2660 , 81 L.Ed.2d 366 (1984). 27 Although we find no reversible error as to either the appellant's absence from the investigation or the failure to allow further investigation, we nevertheless do not wholeheartedly embrace the actions of the district court here.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. George Tom Darby, Constantine Yamanis, Vincent Calise, and Michael Yamanis
11th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
See United States v. Barshov, 733 F.2d 842, 850 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Williams, 716 F.2d 864, 865 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Edwards, 696 F.2d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1884 , 76 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Emanuel Barshov and James E. Ross
11th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
United States v. Williams, 716 F.2d 864, 865 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 978-80 (5th Cir.1978), cert. de *851 nied, 441 U.S. 922 , 99 S.Ct. 2030 , 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ira Eugene WILLIAMS, John Thomas Taylor, Jr., Defendants-Appellants
82-5971.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Oct 7, 1983.
716 F.2d 864
Neil H. Jaffee, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for Ira Williams., Michael G. Smith, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for John Taylor., Stanley Marcus, U.S. Atty., Jon May, Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiffappellee.
Godbold, Per Curiam, Roney, Tjoflat.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Convicted of bank robbery, Williams and Taylor raise two issues on their appeals, neither of which requires reversal.

First, as to the district court’s sealing of the affidavits in support of a search warrant, the judge made a specific determination that the disclosure of any portion of the affidavit would reveal the identity of the confidential informants whose lives would then be in jeopardy. Giving full regard to: the fact that this issue involves a motion to suppress where the interests are of a lesser magnitude than those in the criminal trial itself, United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 679,100 S.Ct. 2406, 2414, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980); the in camera procedures followed by the district court which protected the interests here involved, Suarez v. United States, 582 F.2d 1007, 1011-12 (5th Cir.1978); and the recent Supreme Court case which indicates a lessened chance of attacking a search warrant based on affidavits, Illinois v. Gates, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), balance to the issues here involved.

Second, we have repeatedly held that the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to interrogate jurors regarding alleged misconduct. United States v. Edwards, 696 F.2d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1884, 76 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983); Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347-48 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 953,100 S.Ct. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980); United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 978-80 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979); United States v. Robbins, 500 F.2d 650, 653 (5th Cir.1974). The district court was in the best, position to determine whether the facts reflected by counsel’s statement as to the jury’s discussion of the case prior to submission could be cured from error by instructions as given. The district court did not abuse its discretion.

AFFIRMED.