green
Positive treatment
4.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Atwood v. Mapes
The law The law is clear that “a defendant has a due process right to be present at a proceeding ‘whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.... [T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.’ ” United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 , 105 S.Ct. 1482 , 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985) (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-06, 108 , 54 S.Ct. 330 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934)); see Peterson v. United…
cited
Cited "see"
Harris v. State
See Peterson v. United States, 411 F.2d 1074 (8th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 920 , 90 S.Ct. 247 , 24 L.Ed.2d 199 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Edison v. United States
Flute, 535 F.2d at 629 ; see Winters v. United States, 412 F.2d 140, 144 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 920 , 90 S.Ct. 248 , 24 L.Ed.2d 200 (1969) (where 10 U.S.C. § 277 did not forbid the Marine Corps from requiring one hundred percent attendance at its reservists drills although reservists in other branches of the armed forces were required to attend only ninety percent of the reserve drills).
discussed
Cited "see"
Anthony Charles Durham v. United States
See Peterson v. United States, 411 F.2d 1074 (8th Cir.) (holding that the defendant was not prejudiced by his absence from a pretrial hearing, especially when no objection was made by the defendant's counsel), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 920 (1969). 24 Durham also argues that he was denied his right to confront his alleged coconspirators.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Gelden
See, State v. Rockerfeller, 9 Ariz.App. 265 , 451 P.2d 623 (1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 920 , 90 S.Ct. 247 , 24 L.Ed.2d 199 .
cited
Cited "see"
Flute v. United States
See, Winters v. United States, 412 F. 2d 140 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 920 (1969). ( 10 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Paul C. Villano
(2×)
But the defendant’s presence is not constitutionally required unless it bears “a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-06 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 332 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934) (presence not required at jury’s view of crime scene); see also Peterson v. United States, 411 F.2d 1074, 1080 (8th Cir.) (presence not required at pretrial conference), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 920 , 90 S.Ct. 247 , 24 L.Ed.2d 199 (1969).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Henry David Bloom
See e. g., Peterson v. United States, 411 F.2d 1074, 1077-1078 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 920 , 90 S.Ct. 247 , 24 L.Ed.2d 199 (1969).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Michael
See also State v. Rockefeller, 9 Ariz.App. 265 , 451 P.2d 623 , cert. denied 396 U.S. 920 , 90 S.Ct. 247 , 24 L.Ed.2d 199 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Peterson
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 668.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 10, 1969.
396 U.S. 920
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.