United States v. Harold E. Staples, 30 F.3d 108 (10th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Harold E. Staples, 30 F.3d 108 (10th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Don Eugene Siegelman (ca11, 2011-05-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Don Eugene Siegelman
11th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
In Davis , we acknowledged that, after McCormick, "an explicit promise by a public official to act or not act is an essential element of Hobbs Act extortion, and the defendant is entitled to a reasonably clear jury instruction to that effect.” Id. at 108.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Siegelman
11th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
In Davis , we acknowledged that, after McCormick , "an explicit promise by a public official to act or not act is an essential element of Hobbs Act extortion, and the defendant is entitled to a reasonably clear jury instruction to that effect.” Id. at 108.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William F. Bradley, A/K/A Franklin Bradley, William F. Bradley, in No. 97-5462. United States of America v. Jackie R. Mattison, in No. 97-5464
3rd Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Nevertheless, in United States v. Davis, 30 F.3d 108, 109 (11th Cir.1994), the court of appeals adhered to Martinez. 34 We will not follow the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit as in our view, as Justice Kennedy explained, a conclusion that in a Hobbs Act case the government has to demonstrate that the public official made an express promise to perform a particular act and that "knowing winks and nods" are not sufficient would frustrate the act's effect.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bradley
3rd Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Nevertheless, in United States v. Davis, 30 F.3d 108, 109 (11th Cir.1994), the court of appeals adhered to Martinez .
cited Cited "see" Wells v. Commonwealth
Ky. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally, United States v. Staples, 30 F.3d 108 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Guerra-Marez, 928 F.2d 665 (5th Cir.1991).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Harold E. STAPLES, Defendant-Appellant
91-5033.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jul 21, 1994.
30 F.3d 108
Susan W. Pennington, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Tony M. Graham, U.S. Atty. and Neal B. Kirkpatrick, Asst. U.S. Atty., with her on the brief), Tulsa, OK, for plaintiff-appellee., Clark 0. Brewster of Brewster and Shall-cross (Jennifer L. DeAngelis with him on the brief), Tulsa, OK, for defendant-appellant.
Anderson, Ebel.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Staples v. United States, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994), the court recalls its mandate and vacates its judgment. The judgment of conviction entered by the district court is also vacated.

The appellant has consistently challenged the sufficiency of the evidence in this case, including motions at trial for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case and at the close of all the evidence, and argument of the point on appeal. We address those contentions anew in light of the opinion of the Supreme Court. See United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 996-98 (10th Cir.1993); United States v. Haddock, 961 F.2d 933, 934 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 88, 121 L.Ed.2d 50 (1992) (and cases cited therein); United States v. Jelsma, 630 F.2d 778 (10th Cir.1980); and United States v. Morris, 612 F.2d 483, 491-92 (10th Cir.1979).

Upon reviewing the record we conclude that no rational juror could find Mr. Staples guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. The mandate shall issue forthwith.