green
Positive treatment
10.9 score
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Henry Adamson v. Ronald Cathel
(2×)
See United States v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536, 544 (3d Cir.2004) (noting the importance of the limiting instruction in Street), vacated on other grounds, 546 U.S. 1086 , 126 S.Ct. 1078 , 163 L.Ed.2d 849 (2006); see also Ray v. Boatwright, 592 F.3d 793, 797 (7th Cir.2010) (finding confrontation clause violation when co-actors' statements were introduced into evidence in prosecution’s case-in-chief, as opposed to on rebuttal, and no limiting instruction was given); Furr v. Brady, 440 F.3d 34, 39 (1st Cir.2006) ("[The Street Court] noted that, absent other circumstances, it is sufficient that the co…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wecht
(2×)
See United States v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536 (3d Cir.2004) (“it is well-established that [a district court] has broad discretion to determine how long jury deliberations should continue”), vacated on other grounds, 546 U.S. 1086 , 126 S.Ct. 1078 , 163 L.Ed.2d 849 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cyril H. Wecht
See United States v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2004) (“it is well-established that [a district court] has broad discretion to determine how long jury deliberations should continue”), vacated on other grounds, 546 U.S. 1086 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bertling
To put it another way, “ ‘[a] motion for judgment of acquittal should only be granted where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, is such that a reasonably minded jury must have a reasonable doubt as to the existence of any essential elements of the crime charged.’ ” United States v. Pardue, 983 F.2d 843, 847 (8th Cir.1993) (quoting United States v. Mundt, 846 F.2d 1157, 1158 (8th Cir.1988), with citation omitted and emphasis added); accord United States v. Lopez, 384 F.3d 937, 943 (8th Cir.2004) (“ ‘In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the e…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sharron Grinnage
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536, 541-42 (3d Cir.2004), vacated on other grounds, Trala v. United States, 546 U.S. 1086 , 126 S.Ct. 1078 , 163 L.Ed.2d 849 (2006); United States v. Ewell, 252 F.Supp.2d 104, 111-12 (D.N.J.2003), aff'd, United States v. Adams, 189 Fed.Appx. 120 (3d Cir.2006).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Attorney General of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
(4×)
See, e.g., United States v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536, 541 (3d Cir.2004), rev’d on other grounds, 546 U.S. 1086 , 126 S.Ct. 1078 , 163 L.Ed.2d 849 (2006) (citing United States v. Trala, 162 F.Supp.2d 336, 347 (D.Del.2001) (holding that PCR evidence is acceptable where FBI maintains an extensive protocol on its application in context of criminal DNA identification)); United States v. Boswell, 270 F.3d 1200, 1205 (8th Cir.2001) (admitting PCR evidence in the context of swine blood, and indicating that “deficiencies” [in the PCR procedure] go to the weight to be given the DNA evidence, not its ad…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Pelletier
See, e.g., United States v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536, 544-545 (3d Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds, 546 U.S. 1086 (2006), a case also involving false statements where the court held the statements, although not relevant, were not barred by the confrontation clause.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Guzman
See, e.g., United States v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536 , 547 n. 15 (3d Cir.2004) (noting that the relevant Sixth Amendment caselaw applies *224 “only where there is a resolution of disputed issues of fact” and finding no violation where there was “no contested evidence” on the disputed matter), vacated on other grounds, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1078 , 163 L.Ed.2d 849 (2006).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Trala
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 05-7628.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 2006.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220 (2005).