KLAPPROTT

v.

UNITED STATES, 335 U. S. 601

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• Casey v. United States, 343 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1952)
  …sed in a 5-4 decision without suggesting that the Court of Appeals had erred in considering the merits of the Government’s position. Cates v. Haderlein, 342 U. S. 804 (1951); Chiarella v. United States, 341 U. S. 946 (1951); Ryles v. United States, 336 U. S. 949 (1949); Bellaskus v. Crossman, 335 U. S. 840 (1948); Fogel v. United States, 335 U. S. 865 (1948); Wixman v. United States, 335 U. S. 874 (1948); Mogall v. United States, 333 U. S. 424 (1948). Similarly, the fact that the Solicitor General does not…
• Ryles v. United States, 183 F.2d 944 (10th Cir. 1950)
  …instruction on the law of entrapment had been requested. Ryles v. U. S., 10 Cir., 172 F. 2d 72, 73. The Supreme Court of the United States, at the suggestion of the Solicitor General, reversed and remanded'the case for a new trial. Ryles v. U. S., 336 U.S. 949, 69 S.Ct. 882, 93 L.Ed. 1104. On the second trial, the defendant admitted the transaction charged in the second count of the indictment and interposed a. defense of entrapment. The jury found the defendant guilty on the second count and he was sen…
• Apodaca v. United States, 188 F.2d 932 (10th Cir. 1951)
  …Rule 30, but that notice may be taken of a grave error which amounts to the denial of a fundamental right of the accused even though no exception was taken. Ryles v. United States, 10 Cir., 172 F. 2d 72; judgment vacated apparently on other ground, 336 U.S. 949, 69 S.Ct. 882, 93 L.Ed. 1104. No grave error amounting to the denial of a fundamental right is presented here, and therefore the question is not open to review. The next contention is that the court erred in its instructions with respect to the mea…