green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 8×
20.6 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 2008–2016 · 2 courts ·
…there is no doubt that it is usually reversible error to admit evidence of the exercise by a defendant of the rights which the constitution gives him if it is done in a context whereupon inferences prejudicial to the defendant are likely to be drawn by the jury.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Snyder
there is no doubt that it is usually revers- ible error to admit evidence of the exercise by a defendant of the rights which the constitution gives him if it is done in a context whereupon inferences prejudicial to the defendant are likely to be drawn by the jury.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Snyder
there is no doubt that it is usually revers- ible error to admit evidence of the exercise by a defendant of the rights which the constitution gives him if it is done in a context whereupon inferences prejudicial to the defendant are likely to be drawn by the jury.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Schiller-Munneman
there is no doubt that it is usually reversible error to admit evidence of the exercise by a defendant of the rights which the constitution gives him if it is done in a context whereupon inferences prejudicial to the defendant are likely to be drawn by the jury.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Schiller-Munneman
there is no doubt that it is usually reversible error to admit evidence of the exercise by a defendant of the rights which the constitution gives him if it is done in a context whereupon inferences prejudicial to the defendant are likely to be drawn by the jury.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Jay
there is no doubt that it is usually reversible error to admit evidence of the exercise by a defendant of the rights which the constitution gives him if it is done in a context whereupon inferences prejudicial to the defendant are likely to be drawn by the jury.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Schiller-Munneman
there is no doubt that it is usually reversible error to admit evidence of the exercise by a defendant of the rights which the constitution gives him if it is done in a context whereupon inferences prejudicial to the defendant are likely to be drawn by the jury.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Osorno
there is no doubt that it is usually reversible error to admit evidence of the exercise by a defendant of the rights which the constitution gives him if it is done in a context whereupon inferences prejudicial to the defendant are likely to be drawn by the jury.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Veatch
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
there is no doubt that it is usually reversible error to admit evidence of the exercise by a defendant of the rights which the constitution gives him if it is done in a context whereupon inferences prejudicial to the defendant are likely to be drawn by the jury.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. House
See Ragland, 210 Or App at 190 -91 (citing State v. Smallwood, 277 Or 503, 505-06 , 561 P2d 600 , cert den, 434 US 849 (1977)); (“There is no doubt that it is usually reversible error to admit evidence of the exercise by a defendant of the rights which the constitution gives him if it is done in a context whereupon inferences prejudicial to the defendant are likely to be drawn by the jury.”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Larry D. Rogers
See Wilson v. United States, 554 F.2d 893, 894 (8th Cir.1977) (per curiam), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 849 , 98 S.Ct. 158 , 54 L.Ed.2d 117 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Darnell
See Harris v. Riddle, 551 F.2d 936, 939 (4th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 849 , 98 S.Ct. 160 , 54 L.Ed.2d 118 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lonnie Clifford Jewell
See United States v. Wilson, 523 F.2d 828, 831 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 849 , 98 S.Ct. 158 , 54 L.Ed.2d 117 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Harris
See United States v. Wilson, 523 F.2d 828 (8th Cir.1975) (possession of stolen jewelry two months after theft can give rise to inference of guilty knowledge), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 849 , 98 S.Ct. 158 , 54 L.Ed.2d 117 (1977); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270, 281 (2d Cir.) (possession of treasury bills two months after they had been stolen was circumstantial evidence of knowledge that they were stolen), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 , 94 S.Ct. 116 , 131, 38 L.Ed.2d 53 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Doman
See United States v. Wilson, 523 F.2d 828 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 849 , 98 S.Ct. 158 , 54 L.Ed.2d 117 (1977); United States v. Redd, 438 F.2d 335 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 402 U.S. 977 , 91 S.Ct. 1681 , 29 L.Ed.2d 143 (1971). .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Belieu
See United States v. Hajal, 555 F.2d 558, 566-68 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 849 , 98 S.Ct. 159 , 54 L.Ed.2d 117 (1977); United States v. Gant, 487 F.2d 30, 33 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 941 , 94 S.Ct. 1946 , 40 L.Ed.2d 293 (1974).
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas v. State
Accord, Harris v. Riddle , 551 F.2d 936 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 849 , 98 S.Ct. 160 , 54 L.Ed.2d 118 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Stivers v. Minnesota
See Wilson v. United States, 554 F.2d 893, 894 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 849 , 98 S.Ct. 158 , 54 L.Ed.2d 117 ; Morrow v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 541 F.2d 713, 724 (8th Cir. 1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Miller
Witness testimony about a defendant exercising a constitutional right (such as the right to coun- sel) may lead to the denial of the right to a fair trial if, in context, the jury was likely to infer a defendant’s guilt from their exercise of the constitutional right.1 Id.; see also State v. Smallwood, 277 Or 503, 505-06 , 561 P2d 600 , cert den, 434 US 849 (1977) (affirming denial of a motion for a mis- trial after concluding that the jury was not likely to draw adverse inferences of guilt under the circumstances).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Banks
We then explained that the use of such evidence was improper because evidence that a person has refused to “consent to something he or she is not legally required to do is not admissible.” Id.; see also State v. Smallwood, 277 Or 503, 505 , 561 P2d 600 , cert den, 434 US 849 (1977) (“[I]t is usually reversible error to admit evidence of the exercise by a defendant of the rights which the constitution gives him if it is done in a context whereupon inferences prejudicial to the defendant are likely to be drawn by the jury.” (Emphasis added.)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Donial Davis
United States v. Roberts, 548 F.2d 665, 667 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 920 and 931 and 433 U.S. 913 (1977); see also United States v. Hajal, 555 F.2d 558, 568 (6th Cir.) ("Sometimes ... the facts complained about as prejudicial are so much a part of the res gestae of a crime as to be impossible to avoid."), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 849 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James Barrett v. United States
See Dziurgot, 897 F.2d at 1224 (claim not raised in § 2255 motion will not be reviewed on appeal); cf. United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 5 (1st Cir.1986) (direct appeal). 7 Additionally, we would note, without deciding, that the Jencks Act claim may not be cognizable under section 2255 in any event, by virtue of the recognized rule that nonconstitutional claims may not be presented in a section 2255 proceeding unless “the claimed error of law [represents] ‘a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.’ ” Fasano v. Hall, 615 F.2d 555, 5…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jones
See, e.g., Harris v. Riddle, 551 F.2d 936 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 849 (1977).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Thorpe
See, e.g., Harris v. Riddle, 551 F.2d 936 (4th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 849 , 98 S.Ct. 160 , 54 L.Ed.2d 118 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Beard
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 76-6899.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1977.
C. A. 2d Cdr. Certiorari denied.