green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 7×
86.4 score
“unless the defendant makes a strong preliminary showing that the affiant excluded critical information from the affidavit with the intent to mislead the magistrate, the fourth amendment provides no basis for a subsequent attack on the affidavit's integrity.”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Flores
(2×)
consequently, we examine the effect of any cautionary instructions given by the trial judge and the strength of the evidence suggesting guilt to see if they attenuate the prejudice of the prosecutor's statement.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Benjamin
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the explicitness requirement is satisfied ... so long as the terms of the quid pro quo are clear and unambiguous.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Malbrough v. Holmes
rule 608 authorizes inquiry only into instances of misconduct that are clearly probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, such as perjury, fraud, swindling, forgery, bribery, and embezzlement.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Martinez v. Wallace
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
ecklessness can in some circumstances be inferred directly from the omission itself.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Yong Ping Liu
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
a defendant makes his character an issue when he testifies.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Cleveland
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
unless the defendant makes a strong preliminary showing that the affiant excluded critical information from the affidavit with the intent to mislead the magistrate, the fourth amendment provides no basis for a subsequent attack on the affidavit's integrity.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LEONARD R. COLLIER
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the court's actual instruction allowed tomblin to present that . . . defense to the jury, and we do not require that the instructions do any more.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lewis
“To gauge the effect to [Lewis’s] substantial rights, we must consider ‘(1) the magnitude of the statement’s prejudice, (2) the effect of any cautionary instructions given, and (3) the strength of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt.’” See United States v. Ramirez-Velasquez, 322 F.3d 868, 875 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir.1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sanders
Because Sanders did not object to any of the 348 United States v. Morganfield, 501 F.3d 453, 467 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Insaulgarat, 378 F.3d 456, 461 (5th Cir. 2004)). 349 Id. 350 Id. (quoting Insaulgarat, 378 F.3d at 461 ). 351 Id. (quoting United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir. 1995)). 352 Id. (quoting Insaulgarat, 378 F.3d at 461 ). 53 Case: 15-31114 Document: 283-1 Page: 54 Date Filed: 03/27/2025 No. 15-31114 arguments, these challenges are reviewed for plain error. 353 Sanders first points to the following remarks made by the prosecutor during closing ar…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
CADG Erwin Farms LLC v. Ipour
(2×)
United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1382 (5th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Crandell
“Whether Rule 404(b) or Rule 608(b) applies to the admissibility of other-act evidence depends on the purpose for which the prosecutor introduced the other-acts evidence.” United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1388 (5th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph Fischer
There, “corruptly” means to act with a particular kind of “unlawful purpose” — a defend- ant must intend that the bribe be part of a “quid pro quo.” United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1379-80 (5th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Geiger v. Monroe County, Mississippi
Indeed, as the defendants point out, this Court has already 5 Instances of misconduct that are “clearly probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness” are those such as “perjury, fraud, swindling, forgery, bribery, and embezzlement.” United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dennis
And the more recent video evidence showed that Dennis was engaging in the same conduct described, which freshened the 18 United States v. Prieto, 801 F.3d 547, 555 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 136 (5th Cir. 2011). 19 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978); United States v. Brown, 298 F.3d 392 , 395–96 (5th Cir. 2002). 20 Franks, 438 U.S. at 171–72. 21 United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1377 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 7 Case: 19-50855 Document: 00516409077 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/27/2022 No. 19-50855 information. 22 Dennis cannot show that the d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People of Michigan v. Daniel Webster Wood
However, if the challenge is legal and any of the theories was legally insufficient, then the verdict must be reversed. [See also United States v Tomblin, 46 F3d 1369, 1385-1386 (CA 5, 1995), and United States v Self, 2 F3d 1071, 1092-1093 (CA 10, 1993).] The reason for treating an evidentiary deficiency claim different than a legal deficiency claim “is that jurors can, from their own experience, weed out evidentiary deficiencies, but not legal insufficiencies.” Tomblin, 46 F3d at 1385 ; see also Self, 2 F3d at 1093 (“factual insufficiency . . . does not require reversal as we will presu…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People of Michigan v. Daniel Webster Wood
However, if the challenge is legal and any of the theories was legally insufficient, then the verdict must be reversed. [See also United States v Tomblin, 46 F3d 1369, 1385-1386 (CA 5, 1995), and United States v Self, 2 F3d 1071, 1092-1093 (CA 10, 1993).] The reason for treating an evidentiary deficiency claim different than a legal deficiency claim “is that jurors can, from their own experience, weed out evidentiary deficiencies, but not legal insufficiencies.” Tomblin, 46 F3d at 1385 ; see also Self, 2 F3d at 1093 (“factual insufficiency . . . does not require reversal as we will presu…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Adolfo Ortega
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Such recklessness may be shown circumstantially “when reasons to doubt [the] information’s veracity are obvious.” United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1376 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Williams, 737 F.2d 594, 602 (7th Cir. 1984)); see United States v. Newton, 463 F. App’x 462, 465 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (finding the affiant not reckless when “nothing obvious under the circumstances” would have caused the affiant to doubt the truthfulness of the affidavit); United States v. Brown, 631 F.3d 638, 645 (3d Cir. 2011) (recklessness inferred if “obvious reasons” t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Patrick Lanier
This is problematic because the district court explained in a written order that its decision to. admit the evidence:was not based on Rule 404 at all but instead on Rule 608, which “applies when other-acts evidence is, offered to impeach a witness, ‘to show the character of. the witness for untruthfulness,’ or to show bias.” United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1388 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Schwab, 886 F.2d 509, 511 (2d Cir. 1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Elechi Oti
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
We review this challenge for plain error. 12 Questions about past specific instances of misconduct pertaining to fraud are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) because they are “clearly pro- *694 bative of truthfulness or untruthfulness.” United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Eli Torres
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
An omission may amount to improper government conduct only if the omission is material and the defendant shows that the affiant excluded material information “with the intent to mislead the magistrate.” United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1377 (5th Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Crawford's Auto Center, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1384 (5th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Abraham Fisch
At any rate, because Fisch “did not preserve error by objecting to these instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct at trial,” the court “review[s] these claims only for plain error.” United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1386 (5th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Uddin v. State
“If the challenge is evidentiary, as long as there was sufficient evidence to support one of the theories presented, then the verdict should be affirmed.” Guevara, 191 S.W.3d at 207 -08 (quoting United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1385 (5th Cir. 1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James Romans
(2×)
United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1386 (5th Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Durst
United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1377 (5th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Caleb Deason
United States v. Fortenberry, 350 Fed.Appx. 906 , 910 (5th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1390 (5th Cir.1995)) (internal quotation mark omitted). 55 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People of Michigan v. Jeffrey Thomas Mazur
However, if the challenge is legal and any of the theories was legally insufficient, then the verdict must be reversed. [See also United States v Tomblin, -3- 46 F3d 1369, 1385-1386 (CA 5, 1995), and United States v Self, 2 F3d 1071, 1092-1093 (CA 10, 1993).] The reason for treating an evidentiary deficiency claim different than a legal deficiency claim “is that jurors can, from their own experience, weed out evidentiary deficiencies, but not legal insufficiencies.” Tomblin, 46 F3d at 1385 ; see also Self, 2 F3d at 1093 (“factual insufficiency . . . does not require reversal as we will p…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simon Rene Garcia v. State
(2×)
App. 1985) .................. 16, 17 United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1385 (5th Cir. 1995) .............................. 55 vi Villarreal v. State, 2015 Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Benito Martinez
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“Voluntariness is a question to be determined from the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1377 (5th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Johnny Winters, Jr.
United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 415 (5th Cir.1998) (quoting United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir.1995)). 17 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Johnny Winters, Jr.
The PSR suggested 16 United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 415 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir. 1995)). 17 See United States v. Garcia, 522 F.3d 597, 604 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Gallardo-Trapero, 185 F.3d 307, 321 (5th Cir. 1999); see also McCann, 613 F.3d at 497 (noting that we presume jurors follow instructions “unless there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable” to do so). 13 Case: 12-60378 Document: 00512240127 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/13/2013 No. 12-60378 a criminal history level of IV, yielding a guideline …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Fred Cooper
“The prejudice determination involves ‘(1) the magnitude of the statement’s prejudice, (2) the effect of any cautionary instructions given, and (3) the strength of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt.’ ” Id. at 394 (quoting United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir.1995)). 2.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Marchan
United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1383 (5th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. William Kleinkauf
An officer is not entitled to invoke the good faith exception if the judge who issued the warrant acted after being “misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth.” United States v. Mays, 466 F.3d 335, 343 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) (providing that intentional or reckless statements must be excised from a warrant affidavit, and evidence must be suppressed if the rem…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Butler
This court reviews the issuing court’s wiretap order for clear error, see United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1376 (5th Cir.1995), but reviews de novo the district court’s conclusion that “necessity,” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (l)(c), was not met.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joel Linares-Soberanis
Cf. United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir.1995) (holding that a prosecutor may give “a fair appraisal” of evidence presented at trial during closing arguments).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Turner
Gatlardo-Trapero, 185 F.3d at 321 (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1390 (5th Cir.1995)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 72 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Winfred Johnston, Jr.
Without venturing a comprehensive definition of ‘official function,’ we have no doubt that Neville performs such a role.” (final alteration in original)). 9 No. 09-30880 et al. a high-level decision-making or sensitive position,” an “important mark of high- level responsibility is the existence of discretion involving final decision-making authority over matters of public policy or over the expenditure of substantial sums of money.” Snell, 152 F.3d at 347 (citing United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1391 (5th Cir. 1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. William Rodes, Jr.
Without venturing a comprehensive definition of ‘official function,’ we have no doubt that Neville performs such a role.” (final alteration in original)). 9 No. 09-30880 et al. a high-level decision-making or sensitive position,” an “important mark of high- level responsibility is the existence of discretion involving final decision-making authority over matters of public policy or over the expenditure of substantial sums of money.” Snell, 152 F.3d at 347 (citing United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1391 (5th Cir. 1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alan Lee
Without venturing a comprehensive definition of ‘official function,’ we have no doubt that Neville performs such a role.” (final alteration in original)). 9 No. 09-30880 et al. a high-level decision-making or sensitive position,” an “important mark of high- level responsibility is the existence of discretion involving final decision-making authority over matters of public policy or over the expenditure of substantial sums of money.” Snell, 152 F.3d at 347 (citing United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1391 (5th Cir. 1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Garrett Wilson
It follows that to qualify merely as a “public official,” and not as a “public official in a high-level decisionmaking or sensitive position,” one need not possess “direct authority to make decisions for, or on *507 behalf of, a ... government entity,” nor ■wield “substantial influence over the decision-making process.” Further, this court has said that, in determining whether a defendant was a “public official in a high-level decision-making or sensitive position,” an “important mark of high-level responsibility is the existence of discretion involving final decision-m…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Shon Jefferson
To determine this question, we assess “(1) the magnitude of the statement’s prejudice, (2) the effect of any cautionary instructions given, and (3) the strength of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hill
See, e.g., United States v. ReBrook, 58 F.3d 961, 970 (4th Cir.1995) (finding that part-time attorney for state’s lottery commission held sensitive position based on his relationship to director of lottery commission, the advice he gave him, the influence he had with other lottery commission members, and the fact that he was privy to confidential information), abrogated on other grounds by Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999); United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1391 (5th Cir.1995) (“A senator’s top administrative aide holds a position of substa…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Manzo
A private citizen may be convicted of extortion under the Hobbs Act “if that private citizen either conspires with, or aids and abets, a public official in the act of extortion.” United States v. Saadey, 393 F.3d 669, 675 (6th Cir.2005); see also United States v. McFall, 558 F.3d 951, 958-59 (9th Cir.2009); United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1382 (5th Cir.1995). 4 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Raney
The prejudice determination involves "(1) the magnitude of the statement's prejudice, (2) the effect of any cautionary instructions given, and (3) the strength of the evidence of the defendant's guilt." United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Raney
(2×)
The prejudice determination involves “(1) the magnitude of the statement’s prejudice, (2) the effect of any cautionary instructions given, and (3) the strength of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bruce McCowan
We examine the underlying “[fjactual questions, such as the discretion, supervisory authority, and other indicia of responsibility of [the] official ... only for clear error and afford great deference to the court’s application of the guidelines to those facts.” Id. (citing United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1391 (5th Cir.1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Harper
In making this determination, we assess “‘(1) the magnitude of the statement’s prejudice, (2) the effect of any cautionary instructions given, and (3) the strength of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt.”’ Id. at 415 (quoting United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir.1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Harper
In making this determination, we assess “ ‘(1) the magnitude of the statement’s prejudice, (2) the effect of any cautionary instructions given, and (3) the strength of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt.’ ” Id. at 415 (quoting United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir.1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Harper
In making this determination, we assess “ ‘(1) the magnitude of the statement’s prejudice, (2) the effect of any cautionary instructions given, and (3) the strength of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt.’ ” Id. at 415 (quoting United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir.1995)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
F.3d 263w UNITED STATES of America
v.
Darrell A. TOMBLIN
v.
Darrell A. TOMBLIN
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Darrell A. TOMBLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 93-8679.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 30, 1994.
1
NOTE: THE COURT HAS WITHDRAWN THIS OPINION. SEE 46 F.3d 1369.