green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.3 score
“it follows that although a defendant has a right to present witnesses in his defense, that right 'does not carry with it the right to immunize the witness from reasonable and appropriate cross-examination”
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Commonwealth v. Ranieri
it follows that although a defendant has a right to present witnesses in his defense, that right 'does not carry with it the right to immunize the witness from reasonable and appropriate cross-examination
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Shepard
See, United States v. Wicks, 833 F.2d 192, 195 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988) (Preger- *21 son, J., dissenting) (“I would ... hold that something more than three convictions is required . ..
cited
Cited "see"
White v. Director, TDCJ-ID
See Schneider v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 570, 575-76 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Henry B. Young
See United States v. Zavala, 839 F.2d 523, 526 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 (1988) (indictment was valid even though [one count] did not specify the quantity of controlled substances); Normandeau, 800 F.2d at 958 (indictment was valid even though it did not specify what law had been violated).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lacey
See United States Attorneys’ Manual, § 1—11—400 (cited in United States v. Crowson, 828 F.2d 1427, 1429 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael Lee Haney
See United States v. Wicks, 833 F.2d 192, 193 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that 18 U.S.C.App. 1202(a), the predecessor to section 924(e), "encompasses any person with three predicate convictions, whenever obtained"), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 (1988). 1 10 Accordingly, the district court did not err by finding that each burglary constituted a separate predicate offense for purposes of sentence enhancement under section 924(e)(1).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Kathleen Harris
See United States Attorneys’ Manual, § 1-11.-400 (cited in United States v. Crowson, 828 F.2d 1427, 1429 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988)).
cited
Cited "see"
Desautels v. United States
See United States v. Zavala, 839 F.2d 523, 526 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 86 , 102 L.Ed.2d 62 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Nicholas J. Masterpol
See United States v. Holmes, 840 F.2d 246, 248 (4th Cir.) (adopting exception but finding defendant’s falsification of standardized consent forms within the administrative function of court), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988); United States v. *765 Mayer, 775 F.2d 1387, 1390-92 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (adopting exception and finding submission of false letters of recommendation to sentencing judge within court’s adjudicative function); United States v. Abrahams, 604 F.2d 386, 393 (5th Cir.1979) (adopting exception and finding defendant’s false statemen…
discussed
Cited "see"
Edmond v. Consumer Protection Division (In re Edmond)
See Lawson v. Murray, 837 F.2d 653 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988) (striking testimony of witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment during cross-examination); United States v. Baker, 721 F.2d 647 (8th Cir.1983) (disregarding direct testimony after defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment to prevent cross-examination); United States v. Sack, 118 F.R.D. 500 (D.Neb.1987) (concluding, in the context of a decision denying use immunity in a civil suit, that the litigant had to choose between taking the Fifth Amendment and losing, or answering the discovery qu…
discussed
Cited "see"
Edmond v. Consumer Protection Division
See Lawson v. Murray, 837 F.2d 653 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988) (striking testimony of witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment during cross-examination); United States v. Baker, 721 F.2d 647 (8th Cir.1983) (disregarding direct testimony after defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment to prevent cross-examination); United States v. Sack, 118 F.R.D. 500 (D.Neb.1987) (concluding, in the context of a decision denying use immunity in a civil suit, that the litigant had to choose between taking the Fifth Amendment and losing, or answering the discovery qu…
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Edmond
See Lawson v. Murray, 837 F.2d 653 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988) (striking testimony of witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment during cross-examination); United States v. Baker, 721 F.2d 647 (8th Cir.1983) (disregarding direct testimony after defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment to prevent cross-examination); United States v. Sack, 118 F.R.D. 500 (D.Neb.1987) (concluding, in the context of a decision denying use immunity in a civil suit, that the litigant had to choose between taking the Fifth Amendment and losing, or answering the discovery qu…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robinson v. State
See United States v. Trevino, 556 F.2d 1265, 1271 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 61 (3rd Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038 , 97 S.Ct. 732 , 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977); see also United States v. Zavala, 839 F.2d 523, 528 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 86 , 102 L.Ed.2d 62 (1988); United States v. Bourne, 743 F.2d 1026, 1032 (4th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Soria v. State
(2×)
See, e.g., Schneider v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 570, 575-76 (5th Cir.)(referring to Buchanan as involving concept of “waiver,” although acknowledging that Buchanan did not use that term), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988); Wilkens v. State, 847 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), ce rt. denied, 507 U.S. 1005 , 113 S.Ct. 1646 , 123 L.Ed.2d 268 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Siegel
(2×)
Under such circumstances, the prosecution was entitled to have Heller's direct testimony stricken in its entirety and the jury instructed to *544 disregard it ( see , People v Chin , 67 N.Y.2d 22, 28 ; see also , Lawson v Murray , 837 F.2d 653, 655-656 [4th Cir] [defense witness' direct testimony stricken], cert denied 488 US 831 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gertz
The United States Department of Justice recommends that “prosecution of a compelled witness be handled by an attorney unfamiliar with the substance of the compelled testimony.” Id., citing United States Attorneys' Manual, § 1-11.400; see also United States v. Crowson, 828 F.2d 1427, 1429 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988); United States v. Hampton, 775 F.2d 1479, 1490 (11th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nos. 94-2032, 94-2033
"When immunized statements are received in a case handled by the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division, personnel from the Criminal Section sanitize the reports by redacting statements and fruits of statements by the target of the investigation which could violate the standards of use immunity if used against the individual who made the statement." Appellee's Br. at 20; see United States Attorneys' Manual Sec. 9-23.400; see also United States v. Crowson, 828 F.2d 1427 , 1429-32 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated December 7 & 8, Issued to Stover v. United States
“When immunized statements are received in a case handled by the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division, personnel from the Criminal Section sanitize the reports by redacting statements and fraits of statements by the target of the investigation wMch could violate the standards of use im-immity if used against the individual who made the statement.” Appellee’s Br. at 20; see United States Attorneys’ Manual § 9-23.400; see also United States v. Crowson, 828 F.2d 1427 , 1429-32 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. George A. Inserra John Inserra and John Giura, Dennis Giorgi
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Holmes, 840 F.2d 246, 248 (4th Cir,), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988); Morgan v. United States, 309 F.2d 234, 237 (D.C.Cir.1962), ce rt. denied, 373 U.S. 917 , 83 S.Ct. 1306 , 10 L.Ed.2d 416 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jerry A. Moore
Compare United States v. Holmes, 840 F.2d 246 , 249 & n. 4 (4th Cir.) (defendant’s use of false name when arrested for illegal gambling did not meet Medina de Perez 's requirements since determination of identity was a routine administrative task and admission of his real name was not incriminating per se, but would only have potentially exposed him to a higher sentence), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988), with Equihua-Juarez, 851 F.2d at 1225-27 (defendant's use of false name when arrested by the Border Patrol for illegal entry met Medina de Perez's requireme…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Christopher Jay McCorvey United States of America v. Christopher Jay McCorvey
See also United States v. Wicks, 833 F.2d 192, 193 (9th Cir.1987) (burglaries that occurred on the same night but at different locations are separate convictions), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Capice Unoskie Purnell, Aka: Capice \Pewee\" Purnell"
See United States v. Antonie, 953 F.2d 496, 498-99 (9th Cir.1991) (two robberies committed on the same evening, forty minutes apart from each other, constitute separate predicate offenses under the ACCA), petition for cert. filed (U.S. May 26, 1992) (No. 91-8524); see also United States v. Wicks, 833 F.2d 192, 193-94 (9th Cir.1987) (under earlier version of ACCA, two burglaries committed on same night at different locations considered to be distinct predicate offenses), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 (1988).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Felix Taylor
See, e.g., United States v. Holmes, 840 F.2d 246, 249 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 831 , 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988); United States v. Morris, 741 F.2d 188, 191 (8th Cir.1984).
Aqeel
v.
Seiter, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
v.
Seiter, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
No. 87-6757.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1988.
488 U.S. 831
Published
Citer courts: Massachusetts Appeals Court (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.