United States v. Brett C. Kimberlin (1987)

Compare United States v. Bouthot, 878 F. 2d 1506, 1516 (CA1 1989) (Due process requires federal courts to “scrutinize all suggestive identification procedures, not just those orchestrated by the police.”); Dunnigan v. Keane, 137 F. 3d 117, 128 (CA2 1998) (same); Thigpen v. Cory, 804 F. 2d 893, 895 (CA6 1986) (same), with United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F. 2d 210, 233 (CA7 1986) (Due process check is required only in cases involving improper state action.); United States v. Z…

Compare United States v. Bouthot, 878 F.2d 1506, 1516 (CA1 1989) (Due process requires federal courts to “scrutinize all suggestive identification procedures, not just those orchestrated by the police.’’); Dunnigan v. Keane, 137 F.3d 117, 128 (CA2 1998) (same); Thigpen v. Cory, 804 F.2d 893, 895 (CA6 1986) (same), with United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 233 (CA7 1986) (Due process check is required only in cases involving improper state action.); United States v. Zeil…

Biskup, 20 F.3d at 252, 255 ; United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 219 (7th Cir.1986) (refusing to adopt per se rule of inadmissibility), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 , 107 S.Ct. 3270 , 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1987); United States v. Keplinger, 776 F.2d 678, 704 (7th Cir.1985) (same), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1183 , 106 S.Ct. 2919 , 91 L.Ed.2d 548 (1986); see also Drake v. Clark, 14 F.3d 351, 359 (7th Cir.1994) (rejecting challenge on habeas corpus to the testimony of a witness wh…

See Kimberlin, 805 F.2d at 243-14 (“We recognize that these communications between jurors were allegedly made during the course of trial.

Kimberlin, 805 F.2d at 255, fn. 2 .

United States v. Smith, 890 F.2d 711, 715 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 226 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 , 107 S.Ct. 3270 , 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1987).

In United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 236-37 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 , 107 S.Ct. 3270 , 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1987) and Neely v. Israel, 715 F.2d 1261, 1265 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 723 , 79 L.Ed.2d 184 (1984), we held that it is proper for a district court to allow a jury to hear a defendant plead the fifth amendment if the plea is in response to cross-examination questions that are “reasonably related” to the subject matt…

United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 252 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 , 107 S.Ct. 3270 , 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1987). 3 Mere negligence by the affi-ant does not constitute reckless disregard for the truth.

We affirmed Kimberlin’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal, see United States v. Kimberlin, 781 F.2d 1247, 1248 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 252 (7th Cir. 1986), and collateral review, see United States v. Kimberlin, 675 F.2d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 1982).

Bobby v. Bies, 556 U.S. 825 , 129 S.Ct. 2145, 2152-53 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1173 (2009) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments, supra, § 27 and comment h); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 232 (7th Cir.1986).

See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 524-29 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) (stating that constitutional right to speedy trial must be waived knowingly and intelligently, not by omission); United States v. Alvarez, 860 F.2d 801, 821-22 (7th Cir.1988) (considering constitutional speedy trial claim not raised before trial); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 225-26 (7th Cir.1986) (same).

See Robinson, 8 F.3d at 410 ; United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 234 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Fountain, 768 F.2d 790, 795 (7th Cir. 1985).

See Robinson, 8 F.3d at 410 ; United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 234 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Fountain, 768 F.2d 790, 795 (7th Cir.1985).

Co., 889 F.2d at 609 (defendant cannot raise new theory omitted from pretrial order where facts upon which theory rests were available at the time of pretrial conference); Petree, 831 F.2d at 1194 (party offered no compelling reason why the proposed theory of liability was not disclosed at the pretrial conference); Daniels, 805 F.2d at 210 (district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to consider theory raised for first time after trial).

L'Allier, 838 F.2d at 240 (citing United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 227 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 (1987)).

Id. at 323, 104 S.Ct. at 3085; United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 230 (7th Cir.1986), ce rt. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 , 107 S.Ct. 3270 , 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1987).

Id. at 323, 104 S.Ct. at 3085; United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 230 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 , 107 S.Ct. 3270 , 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1987). 13 Bailin relies on three cases to argue that Richardson does not govern this case: Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 , 97 S.Ct. 2912 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977), and Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990).

Cf. United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 226 (7th Cir.1986) (general claims of discomfort and inconvenience of incarceration are not sufficient to establish prejudice, rather defendant must allege specific prejudice, e.g. the loss of a particular witness).

See Lindgren v. Lane, 925 F.2d 198, 200-03 (7th Cir.1991) (“mere transcript witness’ reference to defendant’s silence,” without evidence that the prosecutor used or was permitted to use that testimony, does not constitute a violation of the fourteenth amendment) ("Doyle does not impose a prima facie bar against any mention whatsoever of a defendant's ... [post-arrest silence], but instead guards against the exploitation of that constitutional right by the prosecutor.’’); Sav…

United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 242 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Zabic, 745 F.2d 464, 470 (7th Cir.1984); United States v. Sweet, 548 F.2d 198, 202 (7th Cir.1977).

See, e.g., Reynolds, 821 F.2d at 432 (rejecting a claim that voir dire was so inadequate that prejudice could not be determined); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 224 (7th Cir.1986) (almost all of fifty-one prospective jurors had heard of defendant, twelve were excused for cause, twelve of the sixteen selected had heard about the crime, several were aware of the accusations against the defendant, but none could recall details), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 , 107 S.Ct…

Espinoza thus expresses the law of the circuit in this regard 31 See e.g., United States v. Washington, 797 F.2d 1461, 1471 (9th Cir.1986) (fact that the search conducted pursuant to the warrant was "a 'serious valid [ ] investigation' " is enough to defeat a claim of subterfuge) (quoting United States v. Hare, 589 F.2d 1291, 1296 (6th Cir.1979)); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 229 (7th Cir.1986) ("Although the offenses indicated in the first warrant were only mis…

Espinoza thus expresses the law of the circuit in this regard. .See e.g., United States v. Washington, 797 F.2d 1461, 1471 (9th Cir.1986) (fact that the search conducted pursuant to the warrant was "a ‘serious valid [ ] investigation’ ” is enough to defeat a claim of subterfuge) (quoting United States v. Hare, 589 F.2d 1291, 1296 (6th Cir.1979)); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 229 (7th Cir.1986) ("Although the offenses indi cated in the first warrant were only mis…

United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 249 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3270 , 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1987).

Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 155-56 , 78 S.Ct. 622, 627 , 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958); Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 , 236 n. 2, 100 S.Ct. 2124 , 2128 n. 2, 65 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 237 (7th Cir.1986); Neely v. Israel, 715 F.2d 1261 (7th Cir.1983).

Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 155-56 , 78 S.Ct. 622, 627 , 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958); Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 , 236 n. 2, 100 S.Ct. 2124 , 2128 n. 2, 65 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 237 (7th Cir.1986); Neely v. Israel, 715 F.2d 1261 (7th Cir.1983).

In such cases, the defendant may be cross-examined on any facts which are relevant to the direct examination.” Id. (citation omitted); see also United States v. Burkett, 821 F.2d 1306, 1310 (8th Cir.1987); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 234 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Barnes, 622 F.2d 107, 109 (5th Cir.1980).

We recently defined in this circuit the meaning of the phrase “issue of ultimate fact.” We explained that “the critical question is whether it can be said with assurance that the fact was necessarily established by the judgment at the earlier trial.” United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 232 (7th Cir.1986); see also Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 336 , 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1086 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1957) (pointing out that the doctrine of collateral estoppel “makes conclus…

Fed.R.Evid. 608(b); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 235 (7th Cir.1986), petition for cert. filed (Feb. 27, 1987).

We affirmed Kimberlin’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal, see United States v. Kimberlin, 781 F.2d 1247, 1248 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 252 (7th Cir. 1986), and collateral review, see United States v. Kimberlin, 675 F.2d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 1982).

See United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 233 (7th Cir. 1986) (“We do not agree that [a nonpolice- 75 orchestrated lineup] triggers a due process right to judicial evaluation of the reliability of the in-court identification under [Biggers].”); United States v. Zeiler, 470 F.2d 717, 720 (3d Cir. 1972) (“Both Wade and Simmons were concerned with the conduct of law enforcement officials in unfairly influencing identifications.”).

It explained, “[The defendant] did not request either remedy at trial, nor did he express dissatisfaction with the trial judge’s handling of the matter.” Id., citing United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 244 (7th Cir.1986).

Some courts have adopted a case-by case approach to the admissibility of hypnotically-enhanced testimony, either adopting procedural safeguards, see, e.g., House v. State, 445 So.2d 815, 826 (Miss.1984); State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525 , ' 432 A.2d 86, 96-97 (1981); State v. Adams, 418 N.W.2d 618, 624 (S.D.1988), or applying a "totality of the circumstances" test that balances the testimony’s reliability and probative value against its prejudicial effect, see, e.g., Mersch v. Cit…

U.S. v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 252 (7th Cir.1986). 1 Mere negligence by the affiant does not suffice, 218 Third Street, 805 F.2d at 258 ; a defendant must offer direct evidence of the affiant’s state of mind or inferential evidence that the affiant had obvious reasons for omitting facts.

Bundy v. Dugger, 850 F.2d 1402, 1415 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 , 109 S.Ct. 849 , 102 L.Ed.2d 980 (1989); McQueen v. Garrison, 814 F.2d 951, 958 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 944 , 108 S.Ct. 332 , 98 L.Ed.2d 359 (1987); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 219 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 , 107 S.Ct. 3270 , 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1986); Sprynczynatyk v. General Motors Corp., 771 F.2d 1112, 1122-23 (8th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1046 , …

Cf. United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 227 (7th Cir.1986) (proper to apply tape to photos to cover up dress of individual pictured where the defendant had been described as wearing a t-shirt with a design), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 , 107 S.Ct. 3270 , 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1987).

See United States v. Salerno, 868 F.2d 524, 541 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907 , 109 S.Ct. 3192 , 105 L.Ed.2d 700 (1989); Tucker, 836 F.2d at 337 ; United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 251 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 , 107 S.Ct. 3270 , 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1987); Kelly, 749 F.2d at 1551 (where trial court did not find allegations of juror bias credible, it was within court’s discretion to refuse to "hold a separate hearing in which it would interrogate…

See United States v. Salerno, 868 F.2d 524, 541 (2d Cir.) (no evidentiary hearing required where "conclusoiy assertions raised no plausible issue concerning actual conflicts or adverse effects on counsel performance”), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907 , 109 S.Ct. 3192 , 105 L.Ed.2d 700 (1989); Tucker, 836 F.2d at 337 (no evidentiary hearing required where new evidence offered would not have had effect on outcome of trial); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 251 (7th Cir.198…

See, e.g., Harker v. Maryland, 800 F.2d 437, 438 (4th Cir. 1986); Wicker v. McCotter, 783 F.2d 487, 493 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1010 (1986); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 219 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 (1987); Clay v. Vose, 771 F.2d 1, 3-5 (1st Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1022 (1986); United States v. Adams, 581 F.2d 193, 198-99 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1006 (1978).

Véanse: Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 379 (1979); United States v. Greer, 806 F.2d 556, 557-558 (5to Cir. 1986); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 224 (7mo Cir. 1986).

Buckhana v. Lane, 787 F.2d 230, 238 (7th Cir.1986), (quoting Wiedemann v. Galiano, 722 F.2d 335, 337 (7th Cir.1983) (trial court reversed for considering juror’s statement as to impact tampered evidence had on deliberations); Owen v. Duckworth, 727 F.2d 643, 646 (7th Cir.1984); United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 243-46 (7th Cir.1986).

United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 230-31 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3270 , 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1987).

United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 233 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Bouye, 688 F.2d 471, 473-74 (7th Cir.1982).

VI Defendant’s Motion for Production of a List of the Government’s Witnesses The court denied this motion for the reasons given by the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 233 (7th Cir.1986) and United States v. Bouye, 688 F.2d 471, 473-74 (7th Cir.1982).

See United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 243-44 (7th Cir.1986) (interpreting Rule 606(b) as not reaching “communications between jurors [that] were allegedly made during the course of trial”).

See United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210 , 215–16 (7th Cir. 1986).

See United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 244 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Bradley, 173 F.3d 225, 230 (3d Cir.1999); United States v. Springfield, 829 F.2d 860, 864 (9th Cir.1987).

See id. at 4–8.

See United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 228 (7th Cir. 1986).

See United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 244 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Bradley, 173 F.3d 225, 230 (3dCir. 1999); United States v. Springfield, 829 F.2d 860, 864 (9th Cir. 1987).