green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
6.1 score
“where there is substantial evidence of a defendant's participation in the conspiracy , 'the significance of his withdrawal relates only to the subsequent acts and declarations of coconspirators.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Marquez v. State
where there is substantial evidence of a defendant's participation in the conspiracy , 'the significance of his withdrawal relates only to the subsequent acts and declarations of coconspirators.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. King
Id. at 1241-42. 18 In the present case, the record reveals Mr. King was a frequent visitor to Michael’s home, was a member of Michael’s extended family, resided at times in the family compound, and had a long-term close relationship with Michael.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Marquez
See United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 416 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1112 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Frost
See State v. Hall, 982 S.W.2d 675, 682 (Mo. banc 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1151 , 119 S.Ct. 2034 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1999). 4 Rejecting the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in faffing to instruct on voluntary manslaughter, the Supreme Court in State v. Jones, 979 S.W.2d 171, 185 (Mo. banc 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1112 , 119 S.Ct. 886 , 142 L.Ed.2d 785 (1999), explained the reasoning behind this rule: The jury, when presented with instructions on murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree, had the opportunity to find that [the defendant’s] actions were n…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Belzel
See United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 417 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1112 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kerwin Blount, AKA Jamaican, AKA John Curly, and Lloyd Streater, AKA Kevin Cash, AKA Fat Boy
In the federal system, “[t]wo or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses,” Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b), and there is a “preference in the federal system for *209 joint trials of defendants who are indicted together,” Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537 , 113 S.Ct. 933 , 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993); see also United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 115 (2d Cir.1998) (per curiam), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1112 , 119 S.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Swida
See, e.g., United States v. Franklyn, 157 F.3d 90 (2d Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1112 , 119 S.Ct. 887 , 142 L.Ed.2d 786 (1999); United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1007 , 118 S.Ct. 584 , 139 L.Ed.2d 422 (1997); United States v. Knutson, 113 F.3d 27 (5th Cir.1997); United States v. Kenney, 91 F.3d 884 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Beuckelaere, 91 F.3d781 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Rambo, 74 F.3d 948 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 819 , 117 S.Ct. 72 , 136 L.Ed.2d 32 (1996); United States v. Wilks, 58 F.3d 1518 (10th Cir.1995). 2 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Magalde
See United States v. Andrews, 22 F.3d 1328, 1341 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 941 (1994); see also United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 415 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1112 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bournes
Rather, the Court found that Congress had a “rational basis to conclude that federal regulation of intrastate incidents of transfer and possession of machineguns is essential to effective control of interstate incidents of traffic in machineguns.” Beuckelaere, 91 F.3d at 786 ; see also United States v. Franklyn, 157 F.3d 90, 96 (2d Cir.1998) (noting that “Congress is authorized to regulate individual instances of purely intrastate activity where the cumulative effect of such activity would substantially affect interstate commerce,” and finding that § 922(o) is a “reasonable measure …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sparks v. United States
Sparks asserts that “[ejvidence of a pri- or identification is not properly admissible when the declarant is uncertain of, or recants, the prior identification at trial.” Current case law does not support this assertion. 5 Indeed, the court said in United States v. O’Malley, 796 F.2d 891 (7th Cir.1986): “Nothing in [Fed.R.Evid.] 801(d)(1)(C) prohibits the introduction of out-of-court statements identifying the defendant made by the declarant who at trial admitted that he made the prior identification but now denies that the defendant was the same involved in the crime.” Id. at 899 (c…
Brown
v.
Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
v.
Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
No. 98-7137.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 19, 1999.
525 U.S. 1112
Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (1) · Wyoming Supreme Court (1)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.