green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
57.6 score
“insofar as the language of an indictment goes beyond alleg- ing elements of the crime, it is mere surplusage that need not be proved.”
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Donald Wanland, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
insofar as the language of an indictment goes beyond alleging elements of the crime, it is mere surplusage that need not be proved.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Doss
insofar as the language of an indictment goes beyond alleg- ing elements of the crime, it is mere surplusage that need not be proved.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Lawson
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
insofar as the language of an indictment goes beyond alleging elements of the crime, it is mere surplusage that need not be proved
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trustees of the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Drive Construction, Inc.
(2×)
Because the Fifth Amendment privilege “is deemed waived unless invoked,” Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 371 (1951), “[a]n individual may lose the benefit of the privilege inadvertently, without a knowing and intelligent waiver.” United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added); Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 , 654 n. 9 (1976) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wilfredo Lopez
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Surplusage is language that “goes beyond alleging elements of the crime.” United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1986). 20 19 The Majority states that the holdings of the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits are that “Section 2422(b) does not require proof that the defendant could have been prosecuted under a particular law so long as the jury may reasonably conclude the defendant’s communications proposed a criminal sexual act.” Majority at 29 n.7.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Atorbe Isibor
See United States v. Evans, 796 F.2d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1395 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Bettencourt, 614 F.2d 214 , 217 n.7 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Ford, 632 F.2d 1354, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980); York v. United States, 241 F. Page 4 of 5 656, 659 (9th Cir. 1916).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David Kiraz
And while Kiraz argues that certain allegations in the 2 indictment were not proved at trial, “[t]he cases make clear that the government need not prove all facts charged in an indictment; instead, only enough facts to prove the essential elements of the crime must be demonstrated at trial.” United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1986). 2.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Arturo Ruiz
Evid. 404(b)(2); United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1395 (9th Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kirkland Charles
The district court did not plainly err when it declined to sua sponte instruct the jury that it was required to compare alleged instances of Charles’s handwriting to an authenticated exemplar to identify his handwriting. “[A] jury may make handwriting comparisons except under extreme or unusual circumstances.” United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1395 (9th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Francisco Beas
United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986); see also United States v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187, 1194 (9th Cir.2004) (applying Jenkins to surplusage in an information).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Norman Garcia
United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Brosnan
The statute under which Brosnan was charged for wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 , prohibits fraudulent transmissions “in interstate or foreign commerce.” Thus, the government was required to prove only that the notices Brosnan triggered through his electronic court filings crossed state lines; where they actually traveled was “mere surplus-age that need not be proved.” United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Evertson
“The failure to include in the instructions surplusage from the [indictment] was not error, because only the ‘essential elements’ of the charge need be proven at trial.” See id. at 1194 (citing United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Evertson
“The failure to include in the instructions surplusage from the [indictment] was not error, because only the ‘essential elements’ of the charge need be proven at trial.” See id. at 1194 (citing United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gilak
United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986) (“Insofar as the language of an indictment goes beyond alleging elements of the crime, it is mere surplusage that need not be proved”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gilak
United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986) (“Insofar as the language of an indictment goes beyond alleging elements of the crime, it is mere surplusage that need not be proved”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Leonel Salazar
(2×)
As we held in United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986) (citations omitted): [T]he government need not prove all facts charged in an indictment; instead, only enough facts to prove the essential elements of the crime must be demonstrated at trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Salazar
As we held in United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted): [T]he government need not prove all facts charged in an indictment; instead, only enough facts to prove the essential elements of the crime must be demon- 8122 UNITED STATES v. SALAZAR strated at trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Leonel Salazar
(2×)
As we held in United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986) (citations omitted): [T]he government need not prove all facts charged in an indictment; instead, only enough facts to prove the essential elements of the crime must be demon strated at trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Salazar
As we held in United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted): [T]he government need not prove all facts charged in an indictment; instead, only enough facts to prove the essential elements of the crime must be demon- strated at trial.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Smith
See United States v. Mariscal, 939 F.2d 884, 886 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1986). 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wayne Anderson
(2×)
All in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Sections 1956 (a)(3) and (2). 27 To the extent the indictment went beyond alleging elements of the crime, "it is mere surplusage that need not be proved." United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wayne Anderson
(2×)
All in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Sections 1956 (a)(3) and (2). 46 To the extent the indictment went beyond alleging elements of the crime, "it is mere surplusage that need not be proved." United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Vail
We therefore agree with the district court that the addition of the specific violation to the superseding indictment in Count I was “surplusage that need not be proved.” See United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Fred S. Pang
United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ediberto A. Alvarez-Farfan
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In fact, “Woodson makes clear that the jury is obliged to make such comparisons and draw conclusions from them.” Jenkins, 785 F.2d at 1395 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dennis Leveque, United States of America v. John Kevin Moore
See Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, 602 , 47 S.Ct. 531 , 71 L.Ed. 793 (1927) (holding the portion of the indictment charging the defendants with violating a treaty that created no offense against the laws of the United States was mere sur-plusage that could be ignored); United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986) ("Insofar as the language of an indictment goes beyond alleging elements of the crime, it is mere surplusage that need not be proved.”). 2 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. State
State v. Headlee, 121 Idaho 979, 981 , 829 P.2d 869, 871 (Ct.App.1992) (citing United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Greiff
See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (setting forth "a general approach" for determining when incriminating statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule also meet the requirements of the Confrontation Clause); State v. Hieb, 107 Wash.2d 97, 105 , 727 P.2d 239 (1986) (rejecting argument that admission of any hearsay violates constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses); United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1048 , 1054 n. 6 (5th Cir.1984) (noting that one has no Confrontation Clause right "unless a codefendant's statement d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Greiff
Ed. 2d 597 (1980) (setting forth “a general approach” for determining when incriminating statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule also meet the requirements of the Confrontation Clause); State v. Hieb, 107 Wn.2d 97, 105 , 727 P.2d 239 (1986) (rejecting argument that admission of any hearsay violates constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses); United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1048 , 1054 n.6 (5th Cir. 1984) (noting that one has no Confrontation Clause right “unless a codefendant’s statement directly alludes to the complaining defendant”); Unit…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Eliodero Delacorte, United States of America v. Guillermo Willie Riojas
Id.; United States v. Escalante, 637 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 856 (1980); United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1394 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom Prock v. United States, 479 U.S. 855 (1986), and cert. denied sub nom White v. United States, 479 U.S. 889 (1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Moyosore Ismoila Segun Debowale Nuratu Lawanson, United States of America v. Moyosore Ismoila
United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1395 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 855 , 107 S.Ct. 192 , 93 L.Ed.2d 125 , 479 U.S. 889 , 107 S.Ct. 288 , 93 L.Ed.2d 262 (1986); United States v. Cashio, 420 F.2d 1132, 1135 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1007 , 90 S.Ct. 1234 , 25 L.Ed.2d 420 (1970); Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(3).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca9 1996
See United States v. Sarault, 840 F.2d 1479, 1485 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1395 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 889 , 107 S.Ct. 288 , 93 L.Ed.2d 262 (1986). 55 We also find the challenged evidence reliable.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael Wayne McCoy United States of America v. Frederick W. Dille, Jr.
Cf. United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1396 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 855 (1986) 4 The government's motion to file a second supplemental excerpt of record is hereby granted.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rude
See United States v. Sarault, 840 F.2d 1479, 1485 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1395 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 889 , 107 S.Ct. 288 , 93 L.Ed.2d 262 (1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Roy ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant
(2×)
“The fifth amendment privilege is not ordinarily self-executing and must be affirmatively claimed by a person whenever self-incrimination is threatened.” United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1986) (citing Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 429 , 104 S.Ct. 1136, 1143 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984)); see also United States v. Unruh, 855 F.2d 1363, 1374 (9th Cir.1987) (“The defendant’s failure to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination waives a later claim of privilege.”), cer t. denied, 488 U.S. 974 , 109 S.Ct. 513 , 102 L.Ed.2d 548 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca9 1995
"When the reason for severance is the need for a codefendant's testimony, [a] defendant must show that he would call the codefendant at a severed trial, that the codefendant would in fact testify, and that the testimony would be favorable." United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 855 , 107 S.Ct. 192 , 93 L.Ed.2d 125 (1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Olano
“When the reason for severance is the need for a codefend-ant’s testimony, [a] defendant must show that he would call the eodefendant at a severed trial, that the codefendant would in fact testify, and that the testimony would be favorable.” United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 855, 107 S.Ct. 192 , 93 L.Ed.2d 125 (1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Marc A. Jamison
When the reason for severance is the need for a codefendant's testimony, a defendant must show "(1) that he would call the codefendant at a severed trial, (2) that the codefendant would in fact testify, and (3) that the testimony would be favorable to the moving party." United States v. Hernandez, 952 F.2d 1110, 1115 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 334 (1992) (quoting United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thaddeus Lawrence Lach
See United States v. Bergman, 813 F.2d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 852 (1987); United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1395 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 855 (1986). 8 Finally, the district court's determination that the prior audit was more probative than prejudicial should not be disturbed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Melesio Noriega-Lopez Noel Guerrero-Rodriguez Mario Cardenas-Leon Rodrigo Corrales-Ponce and Juan De Santiago-Valle
Severance 29 We reject the argument by Cardenas-Leon and Corrales-Ponce that the district court abused its discretion by denying their motion for separate trials based upon de Santiago-Valle's promise to testify that they did not know about the marijuana. 30 "When the reason for severance is the need for a codefendant's testimony, defendant must show that he would call the codefendant at a severed trial, that the codefendant would in fact testify, and that the testimony would be favorable to the moving party." United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 855…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Warren Theo Trenhaile
In order for the "spillover" of prejudice to merit reversal, "the defendant must show that the district court's limiting instructions were insufficient for the jury to compartmentalize the evidence against each defendant." Id.; United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1394 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Edward Barry Paront, United States of America v. Patricia Ann Brown
Because this fact went beyond charging the elements of the crime, "it [was] mere surplusage that need not be proved." United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Urbano Moran Lopez
Parker relied on this rule and on Sherbondy to hold that a 1968 California state court conviction for second degree burglary, under the very statutes at issue in the instant case, was not a "violent felony" for purposes of Sec. 924(e). 5 F.3d at 1324-28 . 10 Appellant also argues that the district court's reliance on the charging paper was error because the statement therein that Appellant had burglarized a "residence" was "mere surplusage." Appellant asserts that "[t]he language of an indictment that goes beyond alleging the elements of the statute is mere surplusage which need not be proven.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jay Arnold Rode, United States of America v. Judith A. Rode, United States of America v. Jill Ann Smith
In United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392-93 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 855 (1986), this court found "frivolous" a defendant's claim that his fifth amendment right was violated when his civil deposition testimony was used against him at trial.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Marvin L. Wiseman, United States of America v. Center Art Galleries-Hawaii, Inc., United States of America v. William D. Mett
United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Carl Veltmann and Christopher Veltmann
United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied sub nom., Prock v. United States, 479 U.S. 855 , 107 S.Ct. 192 , 93 L.Ed.2d 125 (1986), and cert. denied sub nom., White v. United States, 479 U.S. 889 , 107 S.Ct. 288 , 93 L.Ed.2d 262 (1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Richard Alvarez
See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); United States v. Faust, 850 F.2d 575, 583-85 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1395-96 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 855 , 107 S.Ct. 192 , 93 L.Ed.2d 125 (1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Scott McCurdy United States of America v. Pamela McCurdy
Evidentiary hearings on motions to suppress on voluntariness grounds are required where "substantial facts are in dispute." United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1394 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 855 , 107 S.Ct. 192 , 93 L.Ed.2d 125 (1986). 5 John argues that evidentiary and voluntariness hearings were required on his motion to suppress his statements to agent Henry.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ronald Hosey
United States v. Mariscal, 939 F.2d 884, 885 (9th Cir.1991). 6 Where a defendant moves for severance because of the need for a co-defendant's testimony, the defendant "must show that he would call the codefendant at a severed trial, that the codefendant would in fact testify, and that the testimony would be favorable to the moving party." United States v. Jenkins, 785 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, Prock v. United States, 479 U.S. 855 (1986).
Clients' Council
v.
Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., Etc.
v.
Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., Etc.
85-1523.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Mar 25, 1986.
Published
CLIENTS' COUNCIL, et al., Appellants,
v.
Samuel R. PIERCE, Jr., etc., et al., Appellees.
No. 85-1523WA.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
March 25, 1986.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas; Elsijane Trimble Roy, Judge.
ORDER
[*~1387]1
Before the Court is the parties' joint motion to vacate as moot the Court's opinion and judgment of December 5, 1985. 778 F.2d 518. The motion is hereby granted and the opinion is withdrawn and the judgment vacated. Appellant is requested to file, within ten (10) days of the date of this order, a voluntary dismissal of the appeal. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b).
[*~1395]2
The Clerk is directed to publish this order.