Boulware v. New York, 405 U.S. 995 (1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Boulware v. New York, 405 U.S. 995 (1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
105 citation events (41 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" People v. Littlejohn
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
“A trial court has broad discretion to restrict the scope of voir dire by counsel and indeed must preclude repetitive or irrelevant questioning” (People v Jean, 75 NY2d 744, 745 [1989] [citations omitted]; see People v Boulware, 29 NY2d 135, 140 [1971], cert denied 405 US 995 [1972]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Erickson
N.Y. App. Div. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
It is well settled that the Trial Judge "has broad discretion to control and restrict the scope of the voir dire examination” (People v Garrow, 151 AD2d 877 ; see, People v Boulware, 29 NY2d 135, 140 , cert denied 405 US 995 ).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Kendall Isom
2d Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Novick, *861 450 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 995 , 92 S.Ct. 1271 , 31 L.Ed.2d 464 (1972); see also United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 , 94 S.Ct. 988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 740 , 89 S.Ct. 1420 , 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Paul v. Oates
2d Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Lindsey, 451 F.2d 701, 703-04 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 995 , 92 S.Ct. 1270 , 31 L.Ed.2d 463 (1972).
cited Cited "see" Thundershield v. Solem
D.S.D. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Oaks v. Wainwright, 445 F.2d 1062 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 405 U.S. 995 , 92 S.Ct. 1271 , 31 L.Ed.2d 464 (1972); U. S. ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Torres
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
The limited restriction of permitting only one of defendant’s two attorneys to directly address prospective jurors was in keeping with the ability of trial courts “[to] retain appropriate discretion to control their courtrooms and trial proceedings generally and the process of voir dire examination of prospective jurors in particular” that has consistently been applied to limits placed by courts upon the scope of questions that counsel may ask during voir dire (People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 363, 377 ; see also, People v Boulware, 29 NY2d 135, 140 , cert denied 405 US 995 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Boulware
v.
New York
No. 71-5884.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 20, 1972.
405 U.S. 995
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.