How cited: Whaley v. United States · Go Syfert

Whaley v. United States (1988)

green · 166 citation events across 16 courts. Showing the 44 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198820072026
yellow Stevenson v. State (2010)
But See · Tex. App. · signal: but see
But see United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 237 (1st Cir.1987) (describing bail hearings as “a fundamentally different breed of cat” from suppression hearings in that the accused’s bail rights are not so contingent on his ability to speak without fear of the future use of his testimony that he must be granted a blanket immunity from use of all statements made during an initial hearing, particularly as the information may in large part be concerned with the accused’s emp…
Rule Authority · 1st Cir. · 4 citations in this opinion
Id. at 231.
green State v. Moeller (1996)
Quote Authority · S.D. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
See also U.S. v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 237 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988) ("Because the unknown in the case was whether X = Ingraham, the probative worth of this [prior bad acts] evidence far outstripped any unfairly prejudicial effect.") (emphasis in original). [¶ 181] Given the finding of need for this information, the trial court proceeded to do everything it could to avoid any unfair prejudice.
"Because the unknown in the case was whether X = Ingraham, the probative worth of this [prior bad acts] evidence far outstripped any unfairly prejudicial effect."
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See United States v. Olmstead, 832 F.2d 642, 646 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1739 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); United States v. Lawson, 507 F.2d 433, 442-43 (7th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 1004 , 95 S.Ct. 1446 , 43 L.Ed.2d 762 (1975); Murphy v. Holland, 776 F.2d 470, 475 (4th Cir.1985) (term has “self-evident meaning comprehensible to the lay juror”), vacated on other grounds, 475 U.S. 1138 , 106 S.Ct. 1787 , 90 L.Ed.2d 334 (1986).
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See United States v. Olmstead, 832 F.2d 642, 649 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1739 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); United States v. Hemmer, 729 F.2d 10, 13-14 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1218 , 104 S.Ct. 2666 , 81 L.Ed.2d 371 (1984).
Cited · 7th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See United States v. Angulo, 864 F.2d 504, 508 (7th Cir.1988) (quoting United States v. Whaley, 830 F.2d 1469, 1473 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988)); United States v. Moya, 721 F.2d 606, 610 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1037 , 104 S.Ct. 1312 , 79 L.Ed.2d 709 (1984).
Cited (see also) · 1st Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., United States v. Olmstead, 832 ___ ____ _____________ ________ F.2d 642, 645 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , _____ ______ 108 S.Ct. 1739 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988).
Cited (see also) · 1st Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., United States v. Olmstead, 832 F.2d 642, 645 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1739 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988).
Cited (see also) · 1st Cir. · signal: see also
As we have noted before, “[i]n the last analysis, criminal juries are not expected to ignore what is perfectly obvious.” Echeverri, 982 F.2d at 679 ; see also United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 240 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988). 10 DeMasi, Martel, and Papa’s sufficiency challenges need detain us only briefly.
Cited (see also) · 1st Cir. · signal: see also
As we have noted before, "[i]n the last analysis, criminal juries are not expected to ignore what is perfectly obvious." Echeverri, 982 F.2d at 679 ; see also United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 240 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988). 10 32 DeMasi, Martel, and Papa's sufficiency challenges need detain us only briefly.
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see also
We may overturn a verdict “[o]nly when the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Teague, 956 F.2d 1427, 1433 (7th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Whaley, 830 F.2d. 1469, 1473 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988).
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 240 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988).
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Olmstead, 832 F.2d 642, 645 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1739 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988).
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 240 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988).
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 236 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988) (authentication of telephone call and anonymous letters based on caller-author’s “peculiar obsession with [and approach to] the same obscure litigation,” amounting to an idiosyncratic “signature”); see also United *672 States v. McMahon, 938 F.2d 1501, 1508-09 (1st Cir.1991) (authentication of unsigned note based on circumstantial indicia of …
authentication of telephone call and anonymous letters based on caller-author’s “peculiar obsession with [and approach to] the same obscure litigation,” amounting to an idiosyncratic “signature”
Cited (see also) · 1st Cir. · signal: see also
See Fed.R.Evid. 614(b) (authorizing trial judge to interrogate witnesses); see also United States v. Olmstead, 832 F.2d 642, 648 (1st Cir.1987) (discussing extent of district court’s discretion to question a witness in a criminal jury trial), cert, denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1739 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988).
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See generally United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 240 (1st Cir.1987) (“The law is not so struthious as to compel a criminal jury to ignore that which is perfectly obvious.”), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988).
Cited (see also) · 1st Cir. · signal: see also
See Vargas, 945 F.2d at 429 ; Smith, 680 F.2d at 260 ; see also United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 240 (1st Cir.1987) (“The law is not so struthious as to compel a criminal jury to ignore that which is perfectly obvious.”), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988).
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 230 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 983 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 913 , 108 S.Ct. 259 , 98 L.Ed.2d 216 (1987).
Cited · 7th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Whaley, 830 F.2d 1469, 1476 (7th Cir.1987) ("The reviewing court will examine only those contentions that are based on newly raised questions of law, untainted by factual ambiguity.”’) (quoting United States v. McCabe, 720 F.2d 951, 955 (7th Cir.1983)), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988). 14 .
green United States v. David (1991)
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 230 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 983 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 913 , 108 S.Ct. 259 , 98 L.Ed.2d 216 (1987).
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 240 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988). 24 Mongillo also urges that the evidence's probative value was overwhelmed by its unduly prejudicial effect.
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 240 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988).
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Olmstead, 832 F.2d 642, 648 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1739 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988).
Cited (see also) · 2d Cir. · signal: see also
“Only if serious injustice was inflicted upon a defendant, or if he was convicted in a manner inconsistent with fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings, will we exercise our power under the plain error rule.” United States v. Bryant, 480 F.2d 785 , 790 n. 3 (2d Cir.1973) (citing United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 , 56 S.Ct. 391, 392 , 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)); see also United States v. Whaley, 830 F.2d 1469, 1476 (7th Cir.1987) (“plain error is an error resultin…
Cited (see also) · 1st Cir. · signal: see also
See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (articulating standard); see also United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 239-40 (1st Cir.1987) (evidence need not preclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence so long as “a rational jury could look objectively at the proof and supportably conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s guilt had been established”), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , …
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see also
They assert that our review *1019 of its decision should turn on the following question: “Did the evidence at trial show the occurrence of one overall conspiracy, as charged in the indictment, or the occurrence of multiple, narrower, conspiracies?” If we were to tackle this question we would start with the definition of conspiracy: A conspiracy is “a combination or confederation between two or more people formed for the purpose of committing by their joint efforts, a crimina…
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see also
“A court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence must uphold a conviction if, ‘after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” United States v. Hammond, 826 F.2d 577, 579 (7th Cir.1987) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original)); see also United States v. Whaley, 8…
Cited (see also) · 1st Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 230 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988).
Cited · 4th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067 (4th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 56 U.S.L.W. 3789 (U.S. May 16, 1988) (No. 87-6433).
No. 87-6433
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 230 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 983 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 913 , 108 S.Ct. 259 , 98 L.Ed.2d 216 (1987).
Cited · 10th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Whaley, 830 F.2d 1469, 1478-79 (7th Cir.1987) (refusing to impose presumption), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); Lane, 815 F.2d at 878-79 (same); Mays, 738 F.2d at 1190 (same); United States v. Ruppel, 724 F.2d 507, 508 (5th Cir.1984) (same); United States v. Motley, 655 F.2d 186, 188-89 (9th Cir.1981); (imposing presumption); United States v. Jamison, 505 F.2d 407, 413-17 (D.C.Cir.1974) (same).
Cited (see also) · 1st Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 230 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 983 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 913 , 108 S.Ct. 259 , 98 L.Ed.2d 216 (1987).
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., United States v. Whaley, 830 F.2d 1469 , 1472 & n. 1 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988) and cases cited therein.
Cited · 7th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Whaley, 830 F.2d 1469, 1472 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); United States v. Mayo, 721 F.2d 1084, 1088 (7th Cir.1983).
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: accord
We have previously required the common presence of "some highly distinctive quality." United States v. Pisari, 636 F.2d 855, 859 (1st Cir.1981); accord United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 232-33 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); see United States v. Lail, 846 F.2d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir.1988); United States v. Neary, 733 F.2d 210, 216 (2d Cir.1984); United States v. Silva, 580 F.2d 144, 148 (5th Cir.1978).
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: accord
We have previously required the common presence of “some highly distinctive quality.” United States v. Pisan, 636 F.2d 855, 859 (1st Cir.1981); accord United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 232-33 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); see United States v. Lail, 846 F.2d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir.1988); United States v. Neary, 733 F.2d 210, 216 (2d Cir.1984); United States v. Silva, 580 F.2d 144,148 (5th Cir.1978).
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see also
A plain error is one that results in “an actual miscarriage of justice,” United States v. Silverstein, 732 F.2d 1338, 1349 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1111 , 105 S.Ct. 792 , 83 L.Ed.2d 785 (1985), such that the defendant “probably would have been acquitted but for the erroneously admitted evidence.” Wynn, 845 F.2d at 1443 ; see also United States v. Whaley, 830 F.2d 1469, 1476 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); United …
Cited · 2d Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Whaley, 830 F.2d 1469, 1475 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988).
Cited · 7th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Whaley, 830 F.2d 1469, 1473 (7th Cir.1987), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); Abayomi, 820 F.2d at 906 ; Perry, 747 F.2d at 1169 ; Xheka, 704 F.2d at 988-89 ; Quintana, 508 F.2d at 880 ; United States v. Baker, 499 F.2d 845, 848 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1071 , 95 S.Ct. 659 , 42 L.Ed.2d 667 (1974).
green State v. Smith (1999)
Cited (see also) · S.D. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
See also United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 236-7 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988). [¶ 22.] The trial court also gave the appropriate cautionary instruction setting forth the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted.
green State v. Chamley (1997)
Cited (see also) · S.D. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
See also United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 237 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988). [¶ 66.] There was substantial legitimate value in the 404(b) testimony to establish intent and to negate Chamley's claims that he did not commit the charged acts.
Cited (see also) · D.C. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., United States v. Olmstead, 832 F.2d 642, 646 (1st Cir.1987) ("an instruction which uses the words reasonable doubt without further definition adequately apprises the jury of the proper burden of proof”), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1739 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); Murphy v. Holland, 776 F.2d 470, 475 (4th Cir.1985), vacated on other grounds, 475 U.S. 1138 , 106 S.Ct. 1787 , 90 L.Ed.2d 334 (1986) ("To protect the accused’s due process rights and avoid sup…
Cited (see also) · D.C. · signal: see also
The judge also defined it as “such a doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hesitate or pause in the graver or more important transactions of life,” an instruction approved by the Supreme Court in Holland, 348 U.S. at 140 , 75 5.Ct. at 138; see also Bishop v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 132, 137-38 , 107 F.2d 297, 303 (1939) (citations omitted). 6 Additionally, reflecting the fact that to a large extent “[t]he term reasonable doubt ... has a self-evident meaning comprehe…