YOUNGER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (SIRHAN, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST)

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

• Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1982)
  …, at 246-248 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment). Even before Winship, criminal defendants and courts perceived that placing á burden of proof on the defendant may violate due process. For example, in Stump v. Bennett, 398 F. 2d 111, cert. denied, 393 U. S. 1001 (1968), the Eighth Circuit ruled en banc that an Iowa rule requiring defendants to prove alibis by a preponderance of the evidence violated due process. The court, moreover, observed: “That an oppressive shifting of [*132] the burden of proof to a c…
• Harrison Berrier v. Egeler, 583 F.2d 515 (6th Cir. 1978)
  …3) [alibi defense]; Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100, 93 S.Ct. 354, 34 L.Ed.2d 335 (1972) [exculpatory accomplice testimony]; Dixon v. Hopper, 407 F.Supp. 58 (M.D.Ga.1976) [alibi defense]; Stump v. Bennett, 398 F. 2d 111 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1001, 89 S.Ct. 483, 21 L.Ed.2d 466 (1968) [alibi defense]; United States v. Ambrose, 483 F. 2d 742 (6th Cir. 1973) [entrapment]; United States v. Sennett, 505 F. 2d 774 (7th Cir. 1974) [insanity defense]. Contra, Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 72 S.Ct.…
• United States v. Pruitt, 487 F.2d 1241 (8th Cir. 1973)
  …ere dependent upon the validity of such a defense. The challenge to the order in which the instructions were given is patently frivolous, instructions are considered as a whole, Stump v. Bennett, 398 F. 2d 111, 116 (8th Cir., en banc), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1001, 89 S.Ct. 483, 21 L.Ed.2d 466 (1968); further, no objection to the instructions was made by defense counsel as required by Rule 30, Fed.R.Crim.P. Defendant also challenges the prosecutor’s closing argument as being prejudicial. The trial court has b…