How cited: Gordon v. United States · Go Syfert

Gordon v. United States (1971)

green · 327 citation events across 50 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197119982026
Rule Authority · 11th Cir. · 3 citations in this opinion
We do not find persuasive the government’s heavy reliance on Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 880-82 (5th Cir. 1971).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873 (5th Cir.1971).
Rule Authority · 7th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
“It is for the trial judge to decide at the threshold whether news accounts are actually prejudicial; whether the jurors were probably exposed to the publicity; and whether the jurors would be sufficiently influenced by bench instructions alone to disregard the publicity.” United States v. Rasco, 123 F.3d 222, 230-31 (5th Cir.1997), quoting Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873 (5th Cir.1971).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Still, “summary charts are to be used with caution, due to their potential for abuse,” United States v. Richardson, 233 F.3d 1285, 1293 (11th Cir. 2000), and a trial court has “to make certain that an accused is not unjustly convicted in a ‘trial by charts.’” Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 876 (5th Cir. 1971) (citations omitted).4 But the likelihood of error in admitting a summary chart diminishes “where the defenses has the opportunity to cross-examine a witness con…
citations omitted
Rule Authority · 11th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
See United States v. Norton, 867 F.2d 1354, 1362 (11th Cir.1989); Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 876 (5th Cir.1971) (district court’s rulings concerning summary charts are subject to review “only upon a clear showing of abuse and resulting prejudice to an accused”).
Rule Authority · 5th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Further, “[i]t is for the trial judge to decide at the threshold whether news accounts are actually prejudicial; whether the jurors were probably exposed to the publicity; and whether jurors would be sufficiently influenced by bench instructions alone to disregard the publicity.” Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 139 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 , and cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 140 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971).
green U.S. v. Aragon (1992)
Rule Authority · 5th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Further, "[i]t is for the trial judge to decide at the threshold whether news accounts are actually prejudicial; whether the jurors were probably exposed to the publicity; and whether jurors would be sufficiently influenced by bench instructions alone to disregard the publicity." Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 139 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 , and cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 140 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971). probably be w…
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
See id. at 452 ; United States v. Delgado, 256 F.3d 264, 279 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Siciliano, 953 F.2d 939, 944 (5th Cir. 1992); Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 880-81 (5th Cir. 1971).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
United States v. Richardson, 233 F.3d 1285, 1293 (11th Cir.2000); Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 876 (5th Cir.1971) (stating that a district court’s rulings concerning summary charts are subject to reversal “only upon a clear showing of abuse and resulting prejudice to the accused”).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873 (5th Cir. 1971).
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
“The trial judge has broad discretion in ruling on the issue of prejudice resulting from a jury’s exposure to news articles concerning a trial.” United States v. Aragon, 962 F.2d 439, 443 (5th Cir.1992). “[I]t is for the trial judge to decide at the threshold whether news accounts are actually prejudicial; whether the jurors were probably exposed to the publicity; and whether jurors would be sufficiently influenced by bench instructions alone to disregard the publicity.” Id.…
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
See United States v. Delgado, 256 F.3d 264, 279 (5th Cir. 2001); Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 880-81 (5th Cir. 1971).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
See United States v. Norton, 867 F.2d 1354, 1362 (11th Cir. 1989); Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 876 (5th Cir. 1971) (district court’s rulings concerning summary charts are subject to review “only upon a clear showing of abuse and resulting prejudice to an accused”).
district court’s rulings concerning summary charts are subject to review “only upon a clear showing of abuse and resulting prejudice to an accused”
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
See United States v. Rasco, 123 F.3d 222, 230 (5th Cir.1997) (“ ‘It is for the trial judge to decide at the threshold whether news accounts are actually prejudicial; whether the jurors were probably exposed to the publicity; and whether the jurors would be sufficiently influenced by bench instructions alone to disregard the publicity.’ ” (quoting Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873 (5th Cir.1971))), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 868 , 139 L.Ed.2d 765 (1998).
green United States v. Rasco (1997)
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
“It is for the trial judge to decide at the threshold whether news accounts are actually prejudicial; whether the jurors were probably exposed to the publicity; and whether the jurors would be sufficiently influenced by bench instructions alone to disregard the publicity.” Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 (1971).
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
“It is for the trial judge to decide at the threshold whether news accounts are actually prejudicial; whether the jui-ors were probably exposed to the publicity; and whether the jurors would be sufficiently influenced by bench instructions alone to disregard the publicity.” Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 139 , 140, 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971).
Rule Authority · D.C. Cir.
“It is for the trial judge to decide at the threshold whether news accounts are actually prejudicial; whether the jurors were probably exposed to the publicity and whether jurors would be sufficiently influenced by bench instructions alone to disregard the publicity.” Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873 (5th Cir.1971); Waldorf v. Shuto, 3 F.3d 705 , 709-10 (3d Cir.1993) (cited in Williams-Davis, 90 F.3d at 501 ).
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
See United States v. Barnes, 948 F.2d 325 , 331 n. 5 (7th Cir.1991) (“[A] trial judge, realizing after sentencing that the right of allocution has been neglected, may rectify the situation by, in effect, setting aside the sentence, reopening the proceeding, and inviting the defendant to speak.”); United States v. Pelaez, 930 F.2d 520, 523-24 (6th Cir.1991) (reversing a sentence because the district court had no intention of reconsidering the sentence, even though defendant w…
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
See United States v. Barnes, 948 F.2d 325 , 331 n.5 (7th Cir. 1991)("[A] trial judge, realizing after sentencing that the right of allocution has been 19 neglected, may rectify the situation by, in effect, setting aside the sentence, reopening the proceeding, and inviting the defendant to speak."); United States v. Pelaez, 930 F.2d 520, 523-24 (6th Cir. 1991)(reversing a sentence because the district court had no intention of reconsidering the sentence, even though defendant…
affirming the district court's sentence where defendant was given an opportunity to address the court after the court imposed an initial sentence but before the sentencing proceeding concluded
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
"It is for the trial judge to decide at the threshold whether news accounts are actually prejudicial; whether the jurors were probably exposed to the publicity and whether jurors would be sufficiently influenced by bench instructions alone to disregard the publicity." Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 139 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971). 72 On the second day of trial, Appellant Arthur requested a mistrial on behalf of all…
green United States v. Moore (1995)
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
"It is for the trial judge to decide at the threshold whether news accounts are actually prejudicial; whether the jurors were probably exposed to the publicity and whether jurors would be sufficiently influenced by bench instructions alone to disregard the publicity." Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 139 (1971). 23 On the second day of trial, Appellant Arthur requested a mistrial on behalf of all defendants, du…
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
“It is for the trial judge to decide at the threshold whether news accounts are actually prejudicial; whether the jurors were probably exposed to the publicity and whether jurors would be sufficiently influenced by bench instructions alone to disregard the publicity.” Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 139 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971).
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
Ed. 2d 674 (1986) (citing Davis). 10 See Elliott, 571 F.2d at 909 (quoting Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 865 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S. Ct. 139 , 30 L.
Rule Authority · 4th Cir.
Conlin in turn was quoting Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 876 (5th Cir.1971). 3 .
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
A summary must of course be based on foundation testimony connecting it with the underlying evidence summarized, see Koskerides, 877 F.2d at 1134 , and must be “based upon and fairly represent competent evidence already before the jury,” United States v. Conlin, 551 F.2d 534, 538 (2d Cir.) (quoting Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 876 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 139 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 831 , 98 S.Ct. 114 , 54 L.Ed.2d 91
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
The court may order that they be produced in court. 15 A summary must of course be based on foundation testimony connecting it with the underlying evidence summarized, see Koskerides, 877 F.2d at 1134 , and must be "based upon and fairly represent competent evidence already before the jury," United States v. Conlin, 551 F.2d 534, 538 (2d Cir.) (quoting Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 876 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 139 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971)), ce…
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
United States v. Turner, 812 F.2d 1552, 1563 (11th Cir.1987) (citing Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 867 (5th Cir.1971)).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
“In resolving the complex issue of criminal responsibility, it is of critical importance that the defendant’s entire relevant symptomatology be brought before the jury and explained.” Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 883 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 142 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a conviction in a criminal case following a non-jury trial, we must decide whether: the evidence would permit the trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 867 (5 Cir. [1971]).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
"In resolving the complex issue of criminal responsibility, it is of critical importance that the defendant's entire relevant symptomatology be brought before the jury and explained." Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 883 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.s. 828, 92 S.Ct. 139 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 878 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 143 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971).
Rule Authority · 4th Cir.
Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 876 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 63 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 .
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
See, e.g., Soden v. Freightliner Corp., 714 F.2d 498, 506 (5th Cir.1983) (upholding exclusion of charts on ground that they derived from hearsay); Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 876 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 139 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873-74 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 139 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
See Goodman, 605 F.2d at 882 ; Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 873 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 139 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971).
Rule Authority · Miss. · 2 citations in this opinion
United States v. Collier, 453 F.2d 1173, 1176-1177 (5th Cir. 1972) ; Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 885 (5th Circ. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S. Ct. 63 , 30 L.
green United States v. Lee (1997)
Rule Authority · D. Kan. · 2 citations in this opinion
Turning to the government’s suggestion that the persons identified by the defendants are not Cl’s, the government relies upon Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 874 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 63 , 139, 140, 142, 143, 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971).
Rule Authority · Va. Ct. App.
Id. at 380 , 451 S.E.2d at 690 (quoting Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 875 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 9 Contrary to Jones’ contention, the fact that the police did not obtain a warrant prior to placing him under arrest does not affect the probable cause analysis.
green State v. Reeves (2000)
Rule Authority · Conn. App. Ct.
United States v. Elliott, 571 F.2d 880, 909 (5th Cir. 1978); Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 865 (5th Cir. 1971).
green State v. Cepeda (1999)
Rule Authority · Conn. App. Ct.
United States v. Elliott, 571 F.2d 880, 909 (5th Cir. 1978); Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 865 (5th Cir. 1971).
Rule Authority · N.D. Ala.
Fed.R.Evid. 1006 permits admission of such summaries. 34 In Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 876 (5th Cir.1971), the court permitted a summary of testimony. 35 Summaries (charts) were “used as an aid in understanding testimony already introduced in the ease or documents which were available.” Fed.R.Evid. 1006 should be read in conjunction with Fed.
green Bolton v. Commonwealth (1994)
Rule Authority · Va. Ct. App.
An informant is “an undisclosed person who confidentially volunteers material information of violations of the law to officers charged with enforcement of that law.” Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 875 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 (1971).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
See United States v. King, 616 F.2d 1034, 1041 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 969 , 100 S.Ct. 2950, 64 L.Ed.2d 829 (1980); Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 876-77 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 139 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971).
Rule Authority · N.D.N.Y.
ABJ relies on Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 875 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 142 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971), and United States v. Miller, 499 F.2d 736, 741 (10th Cir.1974), to argue that the privilege does not cover a witness who supplies information only after being interviewed by government officials.
green State v. Fenn (1988)
Rule Authority · Conn. App. Ct.
Ed. 2d 862 (1980).’ State v. Castro, 196 Conn. 421, 426 , 493 A.2d 223 (1985). ‘ “ ‘To establish an abuse of discretion, [the defendant] must show that the restrictions imposed upon [the] cross-examination were clearly prejudicial.’ United States v. Elliott, 571 F.2d 880, 909 (5th Cir. 1978); Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 865 (5th Cir. 1971).” State v. Gaynor, [ 182 Conn. 501, 510 , 438 A.2d 749 (1980)].’ State v. Castro, supra, 426 .” State v. Warren, 14 Conn. App.…
green State v. Warren (1988)
Rule Authority · Conn. App. Ct.
Ed. 2d 862 (1980).” State v. Castro, 196 Conn. 421, 426 , 493 A.2d 223 (1985). “ ‘ “To establish an abuse of discretion, [the defendant] must show that the restrictions imposed upon [the] cross-examination were clearly prejudicial.” United States v. Elliott, 571 F.2d 880, 909 (5th Cir. 1978); Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 865 (5th Cir. 1971).’ State v. Gaynor, supra, 510 .” State v. Castro, supra, 426 .
Rule Authority · M.D. Fla.
In Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 874 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 142 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “where publicity prior to and during a trial is neither inherently prejudicial nor unusually extensive, the accused must assume the traditional burden and show actual jury prejudice.” The scope of the “inherently prejudicial” prong has been further elaborated upon by various courts.
green State v. Stokes (1986)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
“As we understand the term, persons who supply information only after being interviewed by police officers, or who give information as witnesses during the course of an investigation, are not informers.” Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 875 (5th Cir.1971) cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 140 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971) quoted in United States v. Oliver, 570 F.2d 397, 401 (1st Cir.1978).
green State v. Duell (1985)
Rule Authority · W. Va.
Whenever insanity is asserted as a defense and is supported by credible evidence, “it is of critical importance that the defendant’s entire relevant sympto-matology be brought before the jury.” Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 883 (Fifth Cir.1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 828 , 92 S.Ct. 63 , 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971).
green State v. Castro (1985)
Rule Authority · Conn.
The defendant is claiming that because Santiago’s testimony was crucial to the state’s case, the jury should have been exposed to any evidence which tended to show Santiago’s bias. “ ‘To establish an abuse of discretion, [the defendant] must show that the restrictions imposed upon [the] cross-examination were clearly prejudicial.’ United States v. Elliott, 571 F.2d 880, 909 (5th Cir. 1978); Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 865 (5th Cir. 1971).” State v. Gaynor, supra, …