LIPSCOMB

v.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• United States v. Hutul, 416 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1969)
  …as to deprive Sacks of a fair trial. See United States v. Schwartz, 398 F. 2d 464, 470 (7th Cir. 1968), cert. den. sub nom. Pyne v. U. S., 393 U.S. 1062, 89 S.Ct. 714, 21 L.Ed.2d 705; United States v. Smith, 283 F. 2d 760 (2d Cir. 1960), cert. den. 365 U.S. 851, 81 S.Ct. 815, 5 L.Ed.2d 815. The prior accident was one of a series of such fraudulent accidents which were part of an overall scheme to defraud the various insurers. As such, evidence of it was properly admissible to prove as essential element of…
• United States v. Barash, 365 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1966)
  …and is entitled only to a limiting instruction on timely request. 1 Wigmore, Evidence § 13, at 300 (3d ed. 1940); Malatkofski v. United States, 179 F. 2d 905, 914 (1 Cir. 1950); United States v. Smith, 283 F. 2d 760, 764 (2 Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 851, 81 S.Ct. 815, 5 L.Ed.2d 815 (1961); United States v. Mont, 306 F. 2d 412, 415-416 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 935, 83 S.Ct. 310, 9 L.Ed.2d 272 (1962). But here Coady’s state of mind was irrelevant unless induced by Barash, a fact as to which t…
• United States v. Phillips, 375 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1967)
  …0 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In fact, he advised the Court that “We don’t have any instruction * * * Any error in the instruction is no longer viable. United States v. Smith, 283 F. 2d 760, 763-764 (2d Cir. 1960), certiorari denied, 365 U.S. 851, 81 S.Ct. 815, 5 L.Ed.2d 815. It is noteworthy that during his cross-examination of Agent Hill, defendant’s counsel admitted that the Government was not trying Homer Phillips for the Tommie Phillips event. Thus the following colloquy occurred betwe…

  ← 1 / 3 →