United States v. William Gouveia, United States of Am. v. Robert Ramirez, United States of Am. v. Philip Segura, United States of Am. v. Adolpho Reynoso, United States of Am. v. Robert Eugene Mills, United States of Am. v. Richard Raymond Pierce, 738 F.2d 1068 (9th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. William Gouveia, United States of Am. v. Robert Ramirez, United States of Am. v. Philip Segura, United States of Am. v. Adolpho Reynoso, United States of Am. v. Robert Eugene Mills, United States of Am. v. Richard Raymond Pierce, 738 F.2d 1068 (9th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, last quoted 1994 · …plain error is highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights and is found only in exceptional circumstances. at p. 1072 ⚠ not in text
40 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Henry Cervantes
9th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
We review the district court’s underlying factual determinations for clear error, United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1984), but we review de novo its ultimate conclusion that there was no Massiah violation, United States v. Danielson, 325 F.3d 1054, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Warren S. Chang
9th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
“The adequacy of jury instructions is determined by examining them in their entirety.” United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Darnell Hayes (2×)
9th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
The purpose was clear -to "create[ ] a situation which would likely cause the defendant to make incriminating statements." United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Richard Paul Georges
9th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Defendant argues that the court's failure to give the jury this instruction at the time the co-conspirators testified constituted reversible error. 9 We have long held that "if evidence of a coconspirator's guilty plea is admitted, then the jury must be instructed that the plea cannot be considered as evidence of the defendant's guilt." United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir.1984); see also United States v. Rewald, 889 F.2d 836, 865 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1006-07 (9th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Elizabeth Ann Carleson
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
"Plain error is 'highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights[,] and is found only in exceptional circumstances.' " United States v. Kessi, 868 F.2d 1097, 1102-1103 (9th Cir.1989) quoting United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Patrick Hinton
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
“Plain error is ‘highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights[,] and is found only in exceptional circumstances.’ ” United States v. Varela, 993 F.2d 686, 688 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 232 , 126 L.Ed.2d 186 (1993), quoting United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William Andrew Davison
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
"Plain error is 'highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights[,] and is found only in exceptional circumstances.' " United States v. Ramos, 861 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir.1988) (quoting United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984)). 8 The district court instructed the jury on the law of first degree murder and the lesser included offense of second degree murder.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Mae Noble, United States of America v. Jaime Ruiz Lopez, United States of America v. Refugio Espinoza, AKA Bookie
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
"Plain error is highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights and is found only in exceptional circumstances." United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Harry Armondo Dorri (2×)
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Thus, plain error is "found only in exceptional circumstances." United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Mark Allen Varela
9th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
“Plain error is ‘highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rightsf,] and is found only in exceptional circumstances.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1972 (9th Cir.1984)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Luciano Ramirez
9th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Palmer, 691 F.2d 921, 923 (9th Cir.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Dale Lloyd
9th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Whether Any of the Instructions Were Plainly Erroneous 8 "Plain error is highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights and is found only in exceptional circumstances." United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Alphonse Cuozzo, United States of America v. Robert Frank Stella, Jr., United States of America v. Karin Susan Monari
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Sherwood Chaison, AKA Skip
9th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
"Plain error is highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights and is found only in exceptional circumstances." United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Earl Brookins
5th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
See United States v. Anderson, 881 F.2d 1128, 1142 (D.C.Cir.1989) (admitting testimony that defendant, charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, had sold drugs out of his apartment on two prior occasions); United States v. Santana, 877 F.2d 709, 710 (8th Cir.1989) (admitting testimony of DEA agent as to prior drug sales by defendant); United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984) (admitting testimony that defendant had previously supplied the informer with an airplane to assist an earlier, but unrelated, drug-smuggling conspiracy). 5 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Scales
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1989 · confidence medium
See also Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 459, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 2630 , 91 L.Ed.2d 364, 384-385 (1986); Brooks v. Kincheloe, 848 F.2d 940, 945 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Hearst, 563 F.2d 1331, 1347-1348 (9th Cir.1977), cert. den., 435 U.S. 1000 , 98 S.Ct. 1656 , 56 L.Ed.2d 90 (1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James E. KESSI, Defendant-Appellant
9th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
“Plain error is ‘highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights[,] and is found only in exceptional circumstances.’ ” Id., quoting United States v. *1103 Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ramon Haro Ramos
9th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Plain error is “highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights[,] and is found only in exceptional circumstances.” United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. James P. O'Neal
9th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Barry Jay Feldman
9th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Marvin Jenkins, United States of America v. Ross Prock, United States of America v. Rich White
9th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Susan Ann Vincent (2×)
9th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
“The adequacy of jury instructions is determined by examining them in their entirety.” United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Gomez
Colo. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir.1984) (that conviction rested on a guilty plea rather than verdiet not relevant on issue, of defendant's credibility); United States v. Bray, 445 F.2d 178 , 181 (5th Cir.1971)("The probative fact is not whether he denied or admitted committing the offense for which he was convicted, but whether he committed the offense at all. ..."); Turner v. State, 301 Md. 180 , 482 A.2d 869, 871 (1984)("It is the conviction which is relevant to the jury's determination of eredibility, not the manner in which that conviction was reached."); Commonweal…
cited Cited "see" Donald Edward Beaty v. Terry Stewart, Director
9th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir.1984).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Wayne Harrison
9th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Kimball
9th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir.1984) (citing United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1202-04 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 , 105 S.Ct. 101 , 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984)) 4 A district court's fruits determination seems most aptly characterized as a mixed question of law and fact with serious constitutional implications.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Kimball
9th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir.1984) (citing United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1202-04 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 , 105 S.Ct. 101 , 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984)). .
discussed Cited "see" Ganci v. Berry
E.D.N.Y · 1988 · signal: accord · confidence high
Cf. United States v. Deutsch, 475 F.2d 55, 57 (5th Cir.1973) (federal prosecution not obligated to obtain evidence from third parties), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Henry, 749 F.2d 203 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. Horsley, 621 F.Supp. 1060, 1066 (W.D.Pa.1985), aff 'd 831 F.2d 288 (3d Cir.1987) (federal prosecutor not required to get file from City of Pittsburgh); accord, United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.1984) (federal prosecutor’s position that he had no obligation to turn over tapes in state’s possession not clearly erroneous).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Scales
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1986 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord U.S. v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068 (9th Cir.1984) (after federal indictment of defendant, state informant acting without knowledge of federal indictment and investigating defendant for transactions unconnected to federal indictment, did not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right within meaning of U.S. v. Henry); US. v. Panza, 750 F.2d 1141 (2d Cir.1984) (where a coparticipant in crime did not act on behalf of the Government in obtaining incriminating admission from defendant, there was no deliberate elicitation by Government and thus no Sixth Amendment violation); U.S. v. Hearst, 563 F.…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Medina & Medina
S.D. Cal. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir.1984) (the determinative issue is not informant’s subjective intentions, but rather whether government officials created a situation which would likely cause defendant to make incriminating statements).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Steven L. Brooks v. Larry Kincheloe
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also United States v. Harris, 738 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir.1984) (“the *945 determinative issue is not the informant’s subjective intentions, but rather whether the federal law enforcement officials created a situation which would likely cause the defendant to make incriminating statements”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
William Gouveia, United States of America v. Robert Ramirez, United States of America v. Philip Segura, United States of America v. Adolpho Reynoso, United States of America v. Robert Eugene Mills, United States of America v. Richard Raymond Pierce
82-1206.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 27, 1984.
738 F.2d 1068
Published

738 F.2d 1068

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William GOUVEIA, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Robert RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Philip SEGURA, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Adolpho REYNOSO, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Robert Eugene MILLS, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Richard Raymond PIERCE, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 81-1271 to 81-1274, 82-1206 and 82-1278.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

July 27, 1984.

Nancy Wieben Stock, Joyce Ann Babst, Richard E. Drooyan, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Michael J. Treman, Santa Barbara, Cal., for Gouveia.

Joseph Francis Walsh, Los Angeles, Cal., for Ramirez.

Joel Levine, Los Angeles, Cal., for Segura.

Manuel U.A. Araujo, Los Angeles, Cal., for Reynoso.

Charles P. Diamond, Los Angeles, Cal., for Mills.

Edwin S. Saul, Encino, Cal., for Pierce.

Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, WRIGHT, CHOY, SNEED, KENNEDY, ANDERSON, HUG, SCHROEDER, POOLE, FERGUSON, and NELSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

These cases are remanded to their respective three judge panels for a resolution of issues not addressed in United States v. Gouveia, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2292, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984), reversing, 704 F.2d 1116 (9th Cir.1983).