Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173 (4th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173 (4th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2004 · ); wilson v. lindler, 8 f.3d 173, 175 (4th cir.1993) (en banc) (per curiam) ( at p. 175 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2004 · …even if we were to find such error in the trial of this case in the state court, the error was invited and therefore cannot form the basis for habeas corpus relief."); leverett v. spears, 877 f.2d 921, 924 (11th cir.1989) ( at p. 175 ≈ altered
55 citation events (30 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tommy Gene Jones v. Christopher Moody, et al. (azd, 2025-10-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tommy Gene Jones v. Christopher Moody, et al.
D. Ariz. · 2025 · confidence medium
See Leavitt v. Arave, 383 F.3d 809 , 832 (9th Cir. 2004); Druery v. Thaler, 647 6 F.3d 535, 545-46 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Fields v. Bagley, 275 F.3d 478, 486 (6th Cir. 7 2001); Parker v. Champion, 148 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (10th Cir. 1998); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir. 1993) (en banc)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sprouse v. VA Director of Prisons
E.D. Va. · 2025 · confidence medium
Since the Fifth Amendment’s requirement of indictment by a grand jury does not apply to the states, Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 174 (4th Cir. 1993) (en banc); see also Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 688 n. 25 (1972) (noting that the “grand jury is not part of the due process of law guaranteed to state criminal defendants by the Fourteenth Amendment”) (citation omitted), any possible irregularity or defect would involve an error of state law.® Finally, the argument’s lack of merit aside, any irregularity or defect with Sprouse’s indictments was cured by his convictions.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Flanders v. Commonwealth of Virginia
E.D. Va. · 2023 · confidence medium
Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 174 (4th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. Clarke
E.D. Va. · 2020 · confidence medium
Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 174 (4th Cir. 1993) (en banc), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1131 (1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Druery v. Thaler
5th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Fields v. Bagley, 275 F.3d 478, 486 (6th Cir.2001) (“When a Petitioner invites an error in the trial court, he is precluded from seeking habeas corpus relief for that error.”); Parker v. Champion, 148 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (10th Cir.1998) (noting that habeas relief on the basis of an invited error is precluded); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (“Even if we were to find such error in the trial of this case in the state court, the error was invited and therefore cannot form the basis for habeas corpus relief.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Haines v. Risley
1st Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Some federal case law assumes that it does, e.g., Gray v. Raines, 662 F.2d 569, 572 (9th Cir.1981), some otherwise, e.g., Wilson v. Lindler, 995 F.2d 1256, 1264 (4th Cir.) (Widener, J., dissenting), adopted by 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1131 , 114 S.Ct. 1101 , 127 L.Ed.2d 414 (1994); there is little full-scale analysis, and this circuit has no clear-cut position. 5 What is more, just when a per se rule applies even in federal prosecutions is a matter of debate and some confusion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Spivey
4th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
We have never recognized an exception to the invited error doctrine, see Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc), and we do not believe one is warranted in this case, given that Spivey’s conviction would neither jeopardize the integrity of the judicial process nor cause a miscarriage of justice.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard A. Leavitt v. Arvon J. Arave, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution, Richard A. Leavitt v. Arvon J. Arave, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution (2×)
9th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
This invited error precludes ... the grant of any habeas relief, on the basis of the alleged improper instruction."); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (per curiam) ("Even if we were to find such error in the trial of this case in the state court, the error was invited and therefore cannot form the basis for habeas corpus relief."); Leverett v. Spears, 877 F.2d 921, 924 (11th Cir.1989) ("Petitioner both argued for and submitted the written jury instructions [he now challenges].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leavitt v. Arave (2×)
9th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
This invited error precludes ... the grant of any habe-as relief, on the basis of the alleged improper instruction.”); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (per curiam) ("Even if we were to find such error in the trial of this case in the state court, the error was invited and therefore cannot form the basis for habeas corpus relief.”); Leverett v. Spears, 877 F.2d 921, 924 (11th Cir.1989) ("Petitioner both argued for and submitted the written jury instructions [he now challenges].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leavitt v. Arave (2×)
9th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
This invited error precludes ... the grant of any habe-as relief, on the basis of the alleged improper instruction.”); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (per curiam) ("Even if we were to find such error in the trial of this case in the state court, the error was invited and therefore cannot form the basis for habeas corpus relief.”); Leverett v. Spears, 877 F.2d 921, 924 (11th Cir.1989) ("Petitioner both argued for and submitted the written jury instructions [he now challenges], Therefore, the doctrine of invited error applies to preclude petitioner from complaini…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard A. Leavitt v. Arvon J. Arave, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution, Richard A. Leavitt v. Arvon J. Arave, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution (2×)
9th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
This invited error precludes ... the grant of any habeas relief, on the basis of the alleged improper instruction."); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (per curiam) ("Even if we were to find such error in the trial of this case in the state court, the error was invited and therefore cannot form the basis for habeas corpus relief."); Leverett v. Spears, 877 F.2d 921, 924 (11th Cir.1989) ("Petitioner both argued for and submitted the written jury instructions [he now challenges].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. Ozmint
4th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
This procedural rule is long-standing and has been strictly applied in South Carolina and by this circuit, see, e.g., State v. Logan, 279 S.C. 345 , 306 S.E.2d 622, 624 (1983); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (per curiam) (holding that "no exception to the invited error doctrine has ever been adopted by this circuit").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. Ozmint
4th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
This procedural rule is long-standing and has been strictly applied in South Carolina and by this circuit, see, e.g., State v. Logan, 279 S.C. 345 , 306 S.E.2d 622, 624 (1983); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (per curiam) (holding that “no exception to the invited error doctrine has ever been adopted by this circuit”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edward Ernest Hartman v. R.C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina
4th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Of course, because the Fifth Amendment requirement of indictment by grand jury does not apply to the states, see Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 633 , 92 S.Ct. 1221 , 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972), "federal cases involving indictments are of little value when evaluating the sufficiency ... of a state accusatory pleading,” Wilson v. Lindler, 995 F.2d 1256, 1264 (4th Cir.) (Widener, J., dissenting), adopted, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (per curiam); see Wilson, 995 F.2d at 1264 n. 6.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stetter v. Shalala, Sec
4th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Neal, 78 F.3d 901, 904 (4th Cir.1996)(defendant invited error by himself eliciting statements he later challenged on appeal); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (defendant invited instruction error through encouragement of particular theory); Ridge v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 117 F.3d 126 , 129 (4th Cir.1997) (defendant invited error by tacitly agreeing to jury’s use of model aircraft); Joseph v. Angelone, 184 F.3d 320, 329 (4th Cir. 1999) (defendant’s counsel invited error by eliciting testimony on cross-examination). 5 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Desmond Charles Lawrence
4th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
United States v. Jackson, 124 F.3d 607, 617 (4th Cir.1997); United States v. Herrera, 23 F.3d 74, 75 (4th Cir.1994); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 174 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Lawrence
4th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
United States v. Jackson, 124 F.3d 607, 617 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Harare, 23 F.3d 74, 75 (4th Cir. 1994); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 174 (4th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alvin Parker v. Ron Champion
10th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
See United States v. Herrera, 23 F.3d 74, 75-76 (4th Cir.1994) (holding that doctrine of invited error precludes grant of habeas relief to petitioner convicted of unindicted offense where petitioner’s counsel requested the instruction on that offense); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (per curiam) (same) (adopting reasoning of dissent in Wilson v. Lindler, 995 F.2d 1256, 1265-67 (4th Cir.1993)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parker v. Champion
10th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
See United States v. Herrera, 23 F.3d 74, 75-76 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that doctrine of invited error precludes grant of habeas relief to petitioner convicted of unindicted offense where petitioner's counsel requested the instruction on that offense); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (per curiam) (same) (adopting reasoning of dissent in Wilson v. Lindler, 995 F.2d 1256, 1265-67 (4th Cir. 1993)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ridge v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
4th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Neal, 78 F.3d 901, 904 (4th Cir.) (defendant invited error by himself eliciting statements he challenges on appeal), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 152 , 136 L.Ed.2d 97 (1996); United States v. Herrera, 23 F.3d 74, 76 (4th Cir.1994) (invited error doctrine bars defendant’s claim that instruction he requested was error); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (defendant invited instruction error through encouragement of particular theory), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1131 , 114 S.Ct. 1101 , 127 L.Ed.2d 414 (1994); Dallago v. United States, 427 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 280, prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,997 Mickie Movita Gordon Ridge, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles W. Ridge, Deceased v. Cessna Aircraft Company, a Corporation, Mickie Movita Gordon Ridge, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles W. Ridge, Deceased v. Cessna Aircraft Company, a Corporation
4th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Neal, 78 F.3d 901, 904 (4th Cir.) (defendant invited error by himself eliciting statements he challenges on appeal), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 855 , 117 S.Ct. 152 , 136 L.Ed.2d 97 (1996); United States v. Herrera, 23 F.3d 74, 76 (4th Cir.1994) (invited error doctrine bars defendant's claim that instruction he requested was error); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (defendant invited instruction error through encouragement of particular theory), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1131 , 114 S.Ct. 1101 , 127 L.Ed.2d 414 (1994); Dallago v. United States, 427…
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jose P. Floresca (4×) also: Cited "see"
4th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Because the majority found that Moore "was in no way prejudiced by the variance," id., it affirmed Moore's conviction. 66 A comparison of Moore and the instant case reveals that the error herein is far less egregious than was the error in Moore: while, in Moore, the elements of the crime for which Moore was indicted varied from those of the crime for which he was convicted and facts entirely distinct from those presented in the indictment were introduced into evidence at trial, here, as noted above, the indictment set out the elements required under both paragraphs and the evidence at trial di…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martinez v. Shapp
E.D. Pa. · 1994 · confidence medium
Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 174 (4th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 1101 , 127 L.Ed.2d 414 (1994); Fields v. Soloff, 920 F.2d 1114, 1118 (2d Cir.1990); Buehl v. Lehman, 802 F.Supp. 1266, 1269 (E.D.Pa.1992); Commonwealth v. Slick, 432 Pa.Super. 563, 568 , 639 A.2d 482, 485 (1994).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Anthony Buster
4th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir. 1993) (en banc); Ridge v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 117 F.3d 126, 129 (4th Cir. 1997).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Anthony Buster
4th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir. 1993) (en banc); Ridge v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 117 F.3d 126, 129 (4th Cir. 1997).
discussed Cited "see" Lucas v. McBride
N.D.W. Va. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1131 , 114 S.Ct. 1101 , 127 L.Ed.2d 414 (1994) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 534-45 , 4 S.Ct. 111 , 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884)) (the right to a grand jury has not been applied to, the States via the Fourteenth Amendment).
examined Cited "see" Jason Matthew Joseph v. Ronald Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections (4×)
4th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See note 1, supra. 3 .
cited Cited "see" United States v. Kerry Ellis
4th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Luis Mario Herrera (2×)
4th Cir. · 1994 · signal: accord · confidence high
Stated more succinctly in the criminal context, “[a] defendant in a criminal ease cannot complain of error which he himself has invited.” Id. (quotation omitted); accord Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 1101 , 127 L.Ed.2d 414 (1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Irvin Jefferson Wilson
v.
Richard S. Lindler, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution State of South Carolina Attorney General of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General
92-6613.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Oct 25, 1993.
8 F.3d 173
1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 27688
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

8 F.3d 173

Irvin Jefferson WILSON, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Richard S. LINDLER, Warden, McCormick Correctional
Institution; State of South Carolina; Attorney
General of South Carolina; T. Travis
Medlock, Attorney General,
Respondents-Appellants.

No. 92-6613.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued Sept. 28, 1993.
Decided Oct. 25, 1993.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Columbia, SC, argued, for appellant.

Parks Nolan Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, SC, argued, for appellee.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL, WIDENER, HALL, PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, WILKINSON, WILKINS, NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

[*~173]1

This case is before the en banc court upon the petition for rehearing of Lindler, Warden, etc. after a panel of this court affirmed the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus to Wilson in Wilson v. Lindler, 995 F.2d 1256 (4th Cir.1993). See also 995 F.2d at 1267 (4th Cir. August 2, 1993) (order granting petition for rehearing). The facts of the case are set out in the majority and dissenting panel opinions.

2

Upon a review of the record and the briefs, and following oral argument, a majority of the court have voted to reverse the district court's grant of the writ. We hold that as far as the district court's decision was grounded on the Fifth Amendment, it was in error. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 534-35, 4 S.Ct. 111, 120, 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884). We further hold that to the extent that the district court found that there was a violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments in the trial of this case in the courts of South Carolina, such a finding also was in error.

3

Even if we were to find such error in the trial of this case in the state court, the error was invited and therefore cannot form the basis for habeas corpus relief. We also hold that no exception to the invited error doctrine has ever been adopted by this circuit, and even if such an exception exists, it would not apply to this case.

4

Our holdings are based on the dissenting panel opinion of Judge Widener in this case, which we adopt as our own. Wilson, 995 F.2d at 1262-67. Judges Russell, Widener, Hall, Murnaghan, Wilkinson, Niemeyer and Luttig agree to the foregoing parts of this opinion and its holding to reverse the district court.

5

Judges Wilkins and Williams concur in the result. They would reverse on the sole ground that if an error at trial was committed it was invited by Wilson.

6

Chief Judge ERVIN and Judges PHILLIPS and HAMILTON respectfully dissent. They would hold that the state indictment in this case was constructively amended and that Wilson's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were therefore violated. They further would hold that although such error in this case may have been invited, there is an exceptional circumstances exception to the invited error doctrine that would apply to this case. Thus, under this view, the district court's grant of the writ would be affirmed. They adopt Judge Hamilton's majority opinion of the panel as their own and would adopt it as the opinion of the en banc court. Wilson, 995 F.2d at 1256-62.

7

The judgment of the district court is accordingly

[*~174]8

REVERSED.