How cited: United States v. Arthur A. Blumeyer, Iii, and John W. Peckham, Jr. · Go Syfert

United States v. Arthur A. Blumeyer, Iii, and John W. Peckham, Jr. (1995)

green · 68 citation events across 11 courts. Showing the 40 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199520102026
Rule Authority · 4th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
See, e.g., Stockton, 852 F.2d at 747 (considering the extent of exposure), United States v. Lloyd, 269 F.3d 228, 240-41 (3d Cir.2001) (considering the timing of exposure, length of jury deliberations and structure of its verdict, and strength of Government’s case); United States v. Williams-Davis, 90 F.3d 490, 497 (D.C.Cir.1996) (considering the strength of Government’s case, whether information gained was cumulative); United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1017-18 (8th Ci…
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
We have consistently held the Remmer presumption of prejudice does not apply unless the alleged outside contact relates to factual evidence not developed at trial. -33- See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 367 F.3d 1019, 1029 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Hall, 85 F.3d 367, 371 (8th Cir. 1996)); United States v. Wallingford, 82 F.3d 278, 281 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 1995)).
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 367 F.3d 1019, 1029 (8th Cir.2004) (citing United States v. Hall, 85 F.3d 367, 371 (8th Cir.1996)); United States v. Wallingford, 82 F.3d 278, 281 (8th Cir.1996) (citing United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir.1995)).
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
See Vigil, 298 F.3d at 941 ; United, States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1172 , 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996). 3.
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
See Vigil, 298 F.3d at 941 ; United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1172 (1996). 3.
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
To the contrary, prejudice will not be presumed “unless the extrinsic contact relates to ‘factual evidence not developed at trial.’” United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir. 1988)).
quoting United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir. 1988)
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
Once such a presumption arises, it becomes the government’s burden to show that “the contact was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996).
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
Once such a presumption arises, it becomes the government's burden to show that "the contact was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1263 (1996).
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
While we review a district court’s decision to grant a new trial for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir.1995), the underlying issue of whether Brown waived his claim is a mixed question of law and fact, for which we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusion de novo.
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
While we review a district court's decision to grant a new trial for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir. 1995), the underlying issue of whether Brown waived his claim is a mixed question of law and fact, for which we review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusion de novo.
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996).
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996).
Rule Authority · D.C. Cir.
The Eighth Circuit has declined to apply a Remmer presumption to jurors’ use of extraneous material for resolution of a legal as opposed to a factual issue, United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1016-17 (8th Cir.1995), a distinction that the court does not explain and that does not on its face seem convincing.
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
However, "[t]he presumption of prejudice does not apply unless the extrinsic contact relates to 'factual evidence not developed at trial.'" United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir. 1988)), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1263 (1996).
quoting United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir. 1988)
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
However, “[t]he presumption of prejudice does not apply unless the extrinsic contact relates to ‘factual evidence not developed at trial.’” United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Cheyenne, 855 F.2d 566, 568 (8th Cir.1988)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996).
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1995).
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir.1995).
Rule Authority · 8th Cir.
United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1016-17 (8th Cir.1995).
green Atwood v. Mapes (2004)
Quote Authority · N.D. Iowa · 2 citations in this opinion
See Tunstall, 306 F.3d at 609 (“in the absence of contrary evidence, we presume, as do Iowa courts, that jurors will follow court admonitions to avoid media coverage regarding a case upon which they are sitting”); Blumeyer, 62 F.3d at 1017 (“It must be presumed that jurors follow such instructions.”).
“It must be presumed that jurors follow such instructions.”
green United States v. Brown (1996)
Rule Authority · D. Minnesota · 2 citations in this opinion
United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1016-17 (8th Cir. 1995).
Quote Authority · S.C.
It further held that the district court erred "[b]y relying on [the juror's] mental processes in connection with the verdict when formulating its findings of fact." Id.; Bibbins v. Dalsheim, 21 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 1994) (holding a juror's affidavit was "inadmissible to the extent that it recounts how [another juror's] disclosure affected the thinking and voting of individual jurors or the deliberations of the jury as a whole, including the tally of votes"); United States v.…
"To the extent that the District Court used testimony barred by Rule 606(b) to make its findings of fact, the court abused its discretion."
Rule Authority · Tenn.
United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir.1995).
Rule Authority · S.D. Iowa
See United States v. Cannon, 88 F.3d 1495 , 1502 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir.1995).
green United States v. Dodd (2004)
Rule Authority · S.D. Iowa
See United States v. Cannon, 88 F.3d 1495 , 1502 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir.1995).
Rule Authority · N.D. Iowa
See United States v. Wilkins, 139 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir.1998); United States v. Brown, 108 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir.1997); United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1172 , 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996).
Rule Authority · N.D. Iowa
See United States v. Wilkins, 139 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir.1998); United States v. Brown, 108 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir.1997); United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1172 , 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996).
Rule Authority · N.D. Iowa
See United States v. Wilkins, 139 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir.1998); United States v. Brown, 108 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir.1997); United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1172 , 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996).
Rule Authority · N.D. Iowa
See United States v. Wilkins, 139 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir.1998); United States v. Brown, 108 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir.1997); United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1172 , 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996).
green United States v. Ortiz (1999)
Rule Authority · N.D. Iowa
See United States v. Wilkins, 139 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir.1998); United States v. Brown, 108 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir.1997); United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1172 , 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996).
Rule Authority · virginislands
In still another case, the trial court's finding that the defendant was not prejudiced was entitled to deference despite the fact that the jury foreperson consulted with an outside attorney concerning substantive issues of law in the case United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1016-17 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1263 (1996).
Rule Authority · N.D. Iowa
See United States v. Brown, 108 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir.1997); United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996); United States v. Johnson, 982 F.2d 1192, 1196 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Schnurstein, 977 F.2d 449, 454 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Van Kirk, 935 F.2d 932, 934 (8th Cir.1991); United States v. McBride, 862 F.2d 1316, 1319 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Copple, 827 F.2d 1182, 1
green Azure v. United States (1996)
Rule Authority
See Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 117-27 , 107 S.Ct. 2739, 2745-51 , 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987); United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1015-18 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996); United States v. Moses, 15 F.3d 774, 778-79 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2691 , 129 L.Ed.2d 822 (1994); see generally, C.
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1172 , 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996); Hall, 85 F.3d at 371 .
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Blumeyer, 62 F.3d at 1017 .
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Blumeyer, 62 F.3d at 3 For example, in opposition to the defendants' motion for new trial, the government argued to the court: [T]he affidavit does not indicate that any comments which may have been overheard by the jury at side bar affected their verdict whatsoever.
Cited (see also) · 4th Cir. · signal: see also
See United States v. Sylvester, 143 F.3d 923, 933-35 (5th Cir.1998) (holding that Phillips and Olano effectively rejected RemmePs rebuttable presumption, and that “only when the [trial] court determines that prejudice is likely should the government be required to prove its absence”); United States v. Williams-Davis, 90 F.3d 490, 495-97 (D.C.Cir.1996), (holding that Phillips and Olano narrowed the Remmer presumption, and that trial court must determine whether particular int…
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1263 (1996); Hall, 85 F.3d at 371 .
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1263 , 134 L.Ed.2d 212 (1996).
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1263 (1996).
Cited (see also) · Mo. Ct. App. · signal: see, e.g.
See e.g., U.S. v. Blumeyer, 62 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1995).