United States v. Billy G. Young, 767 F.2d 737 (10th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Billy G. Young, 767 F.2d 737 (10th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. McCartney (wva, 2011-11-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. McCartney
W. Va. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See McDougal v. McCammon, supra. As the United States Supreme Court explained “a criminal conviction is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a prosecutor’s comments [or conduct] standing alone, for the statements or conduct must be viewed in context[.]” U.S. v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11 , 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1044 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1, 9-10 , on remand, 758 F.2d 514 , on reconsideration, 767 F.2d 737 (1985) (finding harmless error where the prosecutor made an improper statement that the defendant was guilty and urged the jury to “do its job”).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Nelson
S.D. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Young, 470 U.S. at 15 , 105 S.Ct. at 1046 , on remand, 758 F.2d 514 (10thCir.1985), cm reconsideration, 767 F.2d 737 (10thCir.l985)(quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 1592 n. 14, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982)); see also Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 339-40 , 112 S.Ct. 2514, 2518-19 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992), reh’g denied, 505 U.S. 1244 , 113 S.Ct. 21 , 120 L.Ed.2d 948 (1992).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Guthrie
W. Va. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See McDougal v. McCammon, supra. As the United States Supreme Court explained “a criminal conviction is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a prosecutor’s comments [or conduct] standing alone, for the statements or conduct must be viewed in context[.]” U.S. v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11 , 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1044 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1, 9-10 , on remand, 758 F.2d 514 , on reconsideration, 767 F.2d 737 (1985) (finding harmless error where the prosecutor made an improper statement that the defendant was guilty and urged the jury to “do its job”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Billy G. YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant
81-1536.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jul 26, 1985.
767 F.2d 737
1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 20934
Burck Bailey, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant-appellant., David L. Russell, U.S. Atty., F. Michael Ringer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., and William J. Hardy, Trial Atty., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Seth, McWilliams, Brimmer.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The Court, in its initial opinion in this matter, rejected each of Appellant’s contentions with the exception of his arguments relating to prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Young, 736 F.2d 565 (10th Cir.1984). Appellee’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was granted by the United States Supreme Court on February 21, 1984, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1271, 79 L.Ed.2d 676, and this Court’s ruling concerning Appellant’s prosecutorial misconduct contentions was then reversed. — U.S. -,105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). The Court then withdrew its prior opinion in this matter. United States v. Young, 758 F.2d 514 (10th Cir.1985).

The Court, upon reconsideration, believes that the balance of its initial opinion, affirming the remainder of the judgment of[*738] the trial court below, should be reaffirmed, and therefore the judgment is AFFIRMED.