How cited: Sedgwick v. Superior Court of the District of Columbia · Go Syfert

Sedgwick v. Superior Court of the District of Columbia (1979)

green · 110 citation events across 25 courts. Showing the 10 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197920022026
Quote Authority · M.D. Ala.
As stated, Rule 26.2(e) applies where a party “disobeys an order to produce or deliver a statement,” while § 3500(d) of the Jencks Act applies, “[i]f the United States elects not to comply with an order of the court ... to deliver to the defendant any such statement.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 26.2(e) (emphasis added); 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (d) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Dupuy, 760 F.2d 1492, 1497 (9th Cir.1985) (holding that the government’s late disclosure of a statement b…
“Courts have found that late disclosure caused no prejudice in instances where an opportunity for full cross-examination had been provided and where the trial court found no bad faith on the prosecutor’s part.”
Cited · 4th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See United States v. Heath, 580 F.2d 1011 , 1019 n. 1 (10th Cir.1978), cert, denied, 439 U.S. 1075 , 439 U.S. 1075 , 59 L.Ed.2d 42 (1979).
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see also
See also United States v. Heath, 580 F.2d 1011, 1018-19 (10th Cir.1978) (trial court adequately remedied government’s failure to disclose Jencks Act statements by ordering production of statements and allowing recross-examination of witnesses, where government acted in good faith, defendant could not show prejudice, and no motion to strike testimony was made), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1075 , 99 S.Ct. 850 , 59 L.Ed.2d 42 (1979); United States v. Polizzi, 500 F.2d 856, 892-94 (9…
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see also
See also United States v. Cox, 580 F.2d 317, 322 (8th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1075 , 99 S.Ct. 851 , 59 L.Ed.2d 43 (1979). 4 .
Cited (see also) · 11th Cir. · signal: see also
See also United States v. Saenz, 578 F.2d 643 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1075 , 99 S.Ct. 850 , 59 L.Ed.2d 42 (1979) (roving Border Patrol officers must have reasonable suspicion to search vehicle); United States v. DeWitt, 569 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1978) (same); United States v. George, 567 F.2d 643 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Villarreal, 565 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Lopez, 564 F.2d 710 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Escamilla, 560 F.2d …
same
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Cox, 580 F.2d 317, 323 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1075 , 99 S.Ct. 851 , 59 L.Ed.2d 43 (1979); United States v. White, 562 F.2d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1977); United States v. Hutchinson, 488 F.2d at 490 .
Cited · 10th Cir. · signal: see
See, United States v. Saenz, 578 F.2d 643, 647 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1075 , 99 S.Ct. 850 , 59 L.Ed.2d 42 (1975) (car swerved as defendant frequently glanced at rearview mirror).
green Jenkins v. State (1995)
Cited · Tex. Crim. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See United States v. Heath, 580 F.2d 1011, 1018 , 1018 n. 1 (10th Cir.1978), cert. denied 439 U.S. 1075 , 99 S.Ct. 850 , 59 L.Ed.2d 42 (1979) (where there was close cooperation between local police and federal prosecutor, federal prosecutor cannot “stand on technicality and say that he does not have actual possession” of the statement held by local authorities); Augenblick v. United States, 377 F.2d. 586, 597-98 , 180 Ct.Cl. 131 (1967) (“statement” under Jeneks Act “need not…
where there was close cooperation between local police and federal prosecutor, federal prosecutor cannot “stand on technicality and say that he does not have actual possession” of the statement held by local authorities
green Brooks v. State (1995)
Cited · Tex. App. · signal: see
See United States v. Heath, 580 F.2d 1011 , 1018 n. 1 (10th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1075 , 99 S.Ct. 850 , 59 L.Ed.2d 42 (1979); Jenkins v. State, No. 71,040, slip op. at 6, — S.W.2d -, - (Tex.Crim.App., May 5, 1993) (not yet reported).
not yet reported
green United States v. Diggs (1992)
Cited (see also) · D. Kan. · signal: see also
However, “[t]he fact that [defendant’s] statement was made to a state [official] does not make the rule inapplicable.” United States v. Mitchell, 613 F.2d 779, 781 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1283 , 63 L.Ed.2d 604 (1980); see also United States v. Heath, 580 F.2d 1011 , 1018-19 & n. 1 (10th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1075 , 99 S.Ct. 850 , 59 L.Ed.2d 42 (1979); United States v. Jensen, 608 F.2d 1349, 1357 (10th Cir.1979) (under Rule 16, “[t]here…