green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
52.8 score
“while 18 the prosecution must disclose any information within the possession or 19 control of law enforcement personnel, . . . it has no duty to volunteer information 20 that it does not possess or of which it is unaware.”
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lesester Duva McDaughtery v. Foss
while 18 the prosecution must disclose any information within the possession or 19 control of law enforcement personnel, . . . it has no duty to volunteer information 20 that it does not possess or of which it is unaware.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Schaffer v. State
he prosecution must disclose any information within the possession or control of law enforcement personnel . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Relator
See United States v. Thompson, 827 F.2d 1254, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting ex parte proceedings require compelling justification but relying upon examples that involve in camera proceedings not ex parte proceedings and ultimately concluding the district court abused its discretion by proceeding ex parte) (citing United States v. Dupuy, 760 F.2d 1429 , 1501 (9th Cir. 1985) (in camera review of plea bargain notes); United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 1985) (in camera review of In re Texas Department of Criminal Justice — 4 Regardless of whether the law governing…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Personal Restraint Petition Of Tyrone Eaglespeaker
Though the prosecutor must disclose information within the possession or control of law enforcement personnel, “‘it has no duty to volunteer information that it does not possess or of which it is unaware.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Meregildo
United States v. Hutcher, 622 F.2d 1083, 1088 (2d Cir.1980) (“We reject ... a notion of ‘possession’ which is so elastic as to embrace materials that the prosecution has never had in its files, never inspected, and never knew about.”); United States v. Dunn, 851 F.2d 1099, 1101 (8th Cir.1988) (“It is settled law that the government has no affirmative obligation to discover potentially exculpatory information which it neither possessed nor of which it was aware.”) (citing United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mullen
“While the prosecution must disclose any information within the possession or control of law enforcement personnel, it has no duty to volunteer information that it does not possess or of which it is unaware.” United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948 , 983-84 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that federal prosecutors did not violate Brady by not disclosing records in possession of a state agency)', Aichele, 941 F.2d at 764 (same). ¶33 Further, where “a defendant has enough information to be able to a…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mullen
"While the prosecution must disclose any information within the possession or control of law enforcement personnel, it has no duty to volunteer information that it does not possess or of which it is unaware." United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.1985) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 983-84 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that federal prosecutors did not violate Brady by not disclosing records in possession of a state agency); Aichele, 941 F.2d at 764 (same). ¶ 33 Further, where "a defendant has enough information to be able to ascertain …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Habeeb Malik
United States v. Alkins, 925 F.2d 541, 554 (2d Cir.1991); United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 825 (9th Cir.1985) cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 , 105 S.Ct. 2684 , 86 L.Ed.2d 701 (1985); United States v. Taylor, 562 F.2d 1345, 1364 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 432 U.S. 909 , 97 S.Ct. 2958 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1083 (1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sinclair v. City of Needles
Therefore, there is legally sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict on Appellants’ due process claim, see Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000), and the evidence does not weigh heavily against the verdict, see United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bastian
See United States v. Alston, 974 F.2d 1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Steel, 759 F.2d 706, 713-14 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821-22 (9th Cir.1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bastian
See United States v. Alston, 974 F.2d 1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Steel, 759 F.2d 706, 713-14 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821-22 (9th Cir.1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ikbal v. United States
United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ikbal v. United States
United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Khamsomphou
Not only had the jury been instructed that it was to independently consider the entrapment defense with respect to the witness intimidation charge, see United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 825 (9th Cir.1985), but the court supplemented its instructions in response to a prior jury question and made it clear to the jury that the entrapment defense applied to each charge that Khamsomphou faced.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Khamsomphou
Not only had the jury been instructed that it was to independently consider the entrapment defense with respect to the witness intimidation charge, see United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 825 (9th Cir.1985), but the court supplemented its instructions in response to a prior jury question and made it clear to the jury that the entrapment defense applied to each charge that Khamsomphou faced.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tin Yat Chin
In U.S. v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 823 (9th Cir.1985), the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s refusal to admit the testimony of an expert on Taiwanese customs who sought to testify that persons of Asian extraction are more susceptible to inducement by government officials.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Don H. Pace
The April 27 correspondence, whether or not admitted, does not “weigh heavily against the verdict.” See United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Johnson
A reasonable jury could conclude from “the fact that the initial suggestion of bribery came from [Johnson that] she was predisposed to commit the crime.” United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 822 (9th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Setencich
MEMORANDUM * In reviewing the denial of a motion for a new trial, we will find an abuse of discretion by the district court only “in exceptional circumstances in which the evidence weighs heavily against the verdict.” See United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jennings
Cir. 1974)); United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 825 (9th Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Larry E. Jennings, Sr.
Additionally, when there is some evidence to suggest that the defendant’s payment was a gratuity as defined in § 201(c), the trial court must at the defendant’s request instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of “illegal gratuity.” See United States v. Head, 641 F.2d 174, 180 (4th Cir.1981); Arthur, 544 F.2d at 735 (citing United States v. Brewster, 506 F.2d 62, 83 (D.C.Cir.1974)); United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 825 (9th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Amado Gerry Lopez
"Entrapment by estoppel applies when an official tells the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant believes the official." United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 825 (9th Cir.1985) (citing Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 , 85 S.Ct. 476 , 13 L.Ed.2d 487 (1965)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Roberto Reveles-Ramos
"Entrapment by estoppel applies when an official tells the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant believes the official." United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bracy
The government "has no duty to volunteer information that it does not possess or of which it was im-aware.” United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.1985). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
43 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 155, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8022, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,764 United States of America v. Clayton Ross Bracy, United States of America v. David Wayne Hogle, United States of America v. Perry Gilmartin, United States of America v. Richard Melvin Garfinkle
The government "has no duty to volunteer information that it does not possess or of which it was unaware." United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.1985) 6 Although Bracy was found not guilty on count eight, he raises the sufficiency of evidence argument in connection with his challenge to his conviction on count nine.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James Gregory Heavilin
At trial, the defendant testified that the weapons in question were owned and temporarily left at his residence by a federally licensed firearms dealer named John Rexler. 14 The Ninth Circuit has described the defense of entrapment by estoppel as follows: "Entrapment by estoppel applies when an official tells the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant believes the official." United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 825 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985). 15 There was no testimony at trial that Rexler ever told Heavilin that the conduct at issue here--th…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Johnny Harris, Jr.
A motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted only in "exceptional circumstances in which the evidence weighs heavily against the verdict." United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985). 7 Harris asserts the government failed to establish his identity as one of the two men who robbed the First Professional Bank in Pasadena, California, and, therefore, the evidence against him was insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Peter Stein, A/k/a/ Seal A
See United States v. Peters, 962 F.2d 1410, 1414 (9th Cir.1992) (review standard); United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 822 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 , 105 S.Ct. 2684 , 86 L.Ed.2d 701 (1985) (corrupt intent). 4 (2) Stein also claims that the district court erred when it determined that he was an organizer or leader of the offense in question and added two points to his Guideline score.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Javier Hincapie Sanchez v. United States
See United States v. Bryan, 868 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.) (stating that the prosecution has knowledge of information in the possession or control of federal agencies participating in the investigation), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 858 , 110 S.Ct. 167 , 107 L.Ed.2d 124 (1989); United States v. Polizzi 801 F.2d 1543, 1553 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 , 105 S.Ct. 2684 , 86 L.Ed.2d 701 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Santiago Pena-Espinoza
(2×)
Moreover, we have noted the importance of reminding the jurors of the primacy of the tapes, United States v. Armijo, 5 F.3d 1229, 1234-35 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.1985) (same), and we have suggested that a judge should instruct the jury to resolve discrepancies between the tape and the transcript in favor of the tape, see Booker, 952 F.2d at 249 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jackson
United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 825 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 , 105 S.Ct. 2684 , 86 L.Ed.2d 701 (1985); United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 673 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1106 , 102 S.Ct. 2906 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1315 (1982); United States v. Johnson, 621 F.2d at 1076 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Golden Door Jewelry Creations, Inc. v. Lloyds Underwriters Non-Marine Ass'n
See Okabe v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 671 F.2d 863, 865 (5th Cir.1982) (“Offering a bribe under this statute [§ 201(b)(3) ] is a crime involving moral turpitude, for a corrupt mind is an essential element of the offense”); United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 822 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 , 105 S.Ct. 2684 , 86 L.Ed.2d 701 (1985) (bribery under § 201(b) “requires ‘corrupt intent’”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Donna Kaye Lubben
United States v. Hseih Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985). 18 Lubben bases her motion, filed more than seven days after the verdict, on the discovery of new evidence of her psychological condition.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. George Hoff
United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 , 105 S.Ct. 2684 , 86 L.Ed.2d 701 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Prasit Pornpomtada, United States of America v. Somchai Amasuda
The district court correctly concluded the government's interception of the ongoing criminal enterprise did not constitute direction and engineering of the crime. 6 "In order to show that entrapment exists as a matter of law, there must be undisputed testimony making it patently clear that an otherwise innocent person was induced to commit the act complained of by trickery, persuasion, or fraud of a government agent." United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985); see also United States v. Skarie, 971 F.2d 317, 320 (9th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Clyde Gene Goeke
United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Agustin Aquino-Estrada, United States of America v. Taurino Ojeda-Jimenez, United States of America v. Miguel Colmenero-Perez
We review this denial for an abuse of discretion, and we have instructed that a "motion for new trial should be granted only in 'exceptional circumstances in which the evidence weighs heavily against the verdict.' " United States v. Pitner, 979 F.2d 156, 161 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985)). 16 Colmenero's argument is based on several comments made by the district court during the hearing on the motion for a new trial, all of which indicated that the district court might have weighed the evidence diff…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carpenter v. Superior Court
In United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.1985), the court held that the prosecutor’s disclosure obligation includes any information in the possession or control of law enforcement personnel of which it is aware.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gary Wallace Walker
A court should grant a new trial only in "exceptional circumstances in which the evidence weighs heavily against the verdict." United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ann Kim, United States of America v. Keith Kim
United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985). 38 The newly discovered evidence that is the basis for the Kims' motion for a new trial consists primarily of affidavits by Kap Soo Kim, Scott Lee, and Chong Kim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert Pitner, United States of America v. David M. Hanson
United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 , 105 S.Ct. 2684 , 86 L.Ed.2d 701 (1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Arturo Herrera-Meras
United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Timothy P. Long, United States of America v. Gerald H. Bell, United States of America v. Stephen James Goethke, United States of America v. Timothy P. Long
This defense "applies when an official tells the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant believes the official." United States v. Austin, 915 F.2d 363, 366 (8th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 825 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 , 105 S.Ct. 2684 , 86 L.Ed.2d 701 (1985)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1626 , 113 L.Ed.2d 722 (1991).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ed Wilborn
See United States v. Booker, 952 F.2d 247, 249-50 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Long
This defense “applies when an official tells the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant believes the official.” United States v. Austin, 915 F.2d 363, 366 (8th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 825 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 , 105 S.Ct. 2684 , 86 L.Ed.2d 701 (1985)), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 1626 , 113 L.Ed.2d 722 (1991).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Maria Luisa Solis-Cantu
United States v. Tallmadge, 829 F.2d 767, 773 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting United States v. Hsieh Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 825 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. William C. Lachapelle
LaChapelle contends that under the law of this court "[t]he defense of `[e]ntrapment by estoppel applies when an official tells the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant believes the official.'" United States v. Austin, 915 F.2d 363, 366 (8th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 825 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 , 105 S.Ct. 2684 , 86 L.Ed.2d 701 (1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Josuf Papraniku, AKA Sofi, United States of America v. Shaban Dobrova
In order for entrapment to exist as a matter of law, "there must be undisputed testimony making it patently clear that an otherwise innocent person was induced to commit the act complained of by trickery, persuasion, or fraud of a government agent." United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Horacio Solis Lozoya
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Lozoya must prove that the DEA agent induced Lozoya, an otherwise innocent person, to commit the crime through "trickery, persuasion, or fraud." United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985). 5 Lozoya alleges that he was not predisposed to engage in cocaine trafficking and consented to a meeting with DEA Agent Cordova only after being constantly prodded by a DEA informant, Edward Kozodoy.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Teodulo Hernandez-Alvarado
United States v. Booker, 952 F.2d 247, 249 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 824 (9th Cir.) (Chen ), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985). 7 In determining whether government-prepared transcripts may be used by the jury as an aid in listening to tape recordings, we consider the following factors: (1) the district court's review of the transcript for accuracy; (2) the testimony of the agent who participated in the taped conversation as to the accuracy of the transcript; and (3) whether a limiting instruction was given to the jury.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Albert A. SERETTI, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Albert A. SERETTI, Defendant-Appellant
83-1194.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 25, 1985.
Edward R.J. Kane, Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellee., Dominic Gentile, Las Vegas, Nev., for defendant-appellant.
Browning, Merrill, Sneed.
Published
ORDER
Appellant’s petition for appointment of counsel to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari does not comply with section 3(e) of the Ninth Circuit Revised Provisions for the Representation on Appeal of Persons Financially Unable to Obtain Representation, which requires a petition to “state the grounds for seeking a writ of certiorari and the reasons why the ends of justice require the appointment of counsel.” In spite of this defect, we have reviewed appellant’s case to determine whether there are any issues that might be presented to the Supreme Court for review. We conclude that a petition for certiorari would be frivolous. Appointment of counsel in a case such as this is discretionary, and is to be made “as the interests of justice may dictate.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c) (1982). Since petitioner has no substantial grounds on which to petition for certiorari, appellant’s petition for appointment of counsel is denied.