Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 12 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Lopez-Lopez.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Lopez-Lopez Anchor | green | “the district court erred by refusing to allow him access to discovery concerning his constitutional challenge to the appointment of united states attorney guillermo gil.” | 3 |
| 2 | United States v. Adams | green | “which includes a stiff requirement for showing prejudice.” | 3 |
| 3 | Alan Lloyd Lussier v. Frank O. Gunter | green | “(w)hether the language used was manifestly intended or was of such a character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure of the accused to testify.” | 3 |
| 4 | United States v. Corrado Bonfant, United States of America v. Mary A.Z. Ingster | green | “the privilege against self-incrimination of a co-defendant who does not choose to testify does not go so far as to deprive one who does so choose of effective argument in her behalf, so long as it is, as it was here, sensitive to the rights of others” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.