BRUNETTE

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1980)
  …9); People v. Douglas, 66 Cal. App. 3d 998, 136 Cal. Rptr. 358 (1977); People v. Sturgis, 58 Ill. 2d 211, 317 N. E. 2d 545 (1974). See also Woody v. United States, 126 U. S. App. D. C. 353, 354-355, 379 F, 2d 130, 131-132 (Burger, J.), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 961 (1967). This Court has held that “the protective shield of Simmons is not to be converted into a license for false representations. . . United States v. Kahan, 415 U. S. 239, 243 (1974).…
• United States ex rel. Clarence Rivers v. Franzen, 692 F.2d 491 (7th Cir. 1982)
  …6 (4th Cir.1967), testimony of witnesses about the defendant’s behavior during trial as well as post-trial expert opinions were held sufficient to establish incompetency in fact. In Stone v. United States, 358 F. 2d 503 (9th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 961, 88 S.Ct. 341, 19 L.Ed.2d 370 (1967), involving a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1976), post-trial expert opinions that the defendant was incompetent at the time of trial were unchallenged. The court specifically noted that it was dealing only wit…
• United States v. J.D. Ashworth, 836 F.2d 260 (6th Cir. 1988)
  …that the evidence does not “preponderate heavily against the verdict” is a clear and manifest abuse of discretion. C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 559 (1982). See also United States v. Cordle, 377 F. 2d 522, 523 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 961, 88 S.Ct. 342, 19 L.Ed. 2d 370 (1967) (dealing with a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence). In the instant case, our examination of the evidence in Part A leads us to the conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discr…