IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AS OWNER OF THE USCGC BLACKTHORN, FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

I.S. JOSEPH SHIPPING, LTD., I.S. JOSEPH COMPANY, INC., CLIPPER MARITIME CO., LTD., PELL NEDERLAND, B.V. TERMAR NAVIGATION COMPANY, TURBANA BANANA CORP., GULFCOAST TRANSIT CO., ABC CONTAINERLINE, N.V., WALLENIUS REDERIERNA AND MOTORSHIPS, INC., A/B HELSINGFORS STEAMSHIP CO., LTD., AND ALIANZA NAVIERA ARGENTINA, D.A., MARTHANASSA COMPANIA NAVIERA, S.A., NAVIOS CORP. AND OCEANSIDE LTD., ET AL., CLAIMANTS-APPELLANTS

Citator

Cited By (26 total)

• Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1985)
  …4, 1982. That court denied the application without an evidentiary hearing. App. 16a. Franklin appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and ordered that the writ issue. 720 F. 2d 1206 (1983). The court held that the jury charge on the dis-positive issue of intent could have been interpreted by a reasonable juror as a mandatory presumption that shifted to the defendant a burden of persuasion on the intent element of the offense.…
• Brooks v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir. 1985)
  …ndstrom, 442 U.S. at 526, 99 S.Ct. at 2460; accord, Franklin, — U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 1975 n. 8. At best, the contradictory instructions as to intent and malice may have confused the jury as to the proper burden of proof. See Franklin v. Francis, 720 F. 2d 1206, 1212 (11th Cir.1983), aff'd, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985) (— U.S. -, 105 5. Ct. at 1975: “Nothing in these specific sentences or in the charge as a whole makes clear to the jury that one of these contradictory instructions carrie…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• McCLESKEY v. Kemp, 753 F.2d 877 (11th Cir. 1985)
  …consequences of his acts, but both of these presumptions may be rebutted. In its analysis of whether this instruction was unconstitutional under Sandstrom, the district court examined two recent panel opinions of this Circuit, Franklin v. Francis, 720 F. 2d 1206 (11th Cir.1983), cert. granted, — U.S.—, 104 S.Ct. 2677, 81 L.Ed.2d 873 (1984), and Tucker v. Francis, 723 F. 2d 1504 (11th Cir.), on pet. for reh’g and reh’g en banc, 723 F. 2d 1518 (11th Cir.1984). Even though the jury in [*902] structions in the…

Authorities Cited

• Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1927)
• In re the Complaint of Kingston Shipping Co., Inc. v. Roberts, 667 F.2d 34 (11th Cir. 1982)
• In re the Complaint of Hercules Carriers, Inc. v. State, 720 F.2d 1201 (11th Cir. 1983)