RAMIREZ-VILLANUEVA

v.

DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

Citator

Cited By (20 total)

• Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1977)
  …328 U. S. 331; Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252. See also In re Dellinger, 502 F. 2d 813, 815 (CA7 1974), cert. denied sub nom. Dellinger v. United States, 420 U. S. 990; Theriault v. United States, 481 F. 2d 1193, 1196 (CA5 1973), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 1114. Such factors are always relevant in applying the clear-and-present-danger test: Only the combination of content (the word “fire”) and place (a crowded theater) allows prohibition in Mr. Justice Holmes’ famous example, Schenck v. United States, 249…
• United States v. Lewis, 547 F.2d 1030 (8th Cir. 1976)
  …(1962). We must assess the effect of any alleged error “in ‘the context of the entire trial, and not in isolation’.” United States v. Parr, 516 F. 2d 458, 471 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Phillips, 482 F. 2d 191, 196 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1114, 94 S.Ct. 846, 38 L.Ed.2d 741 (1973). Unless calculated to inflame, an appeal to the jury to act as the conscience of the community is not impermissible, and we cannot say that the remarks in the present case exceeded permissible bounds of advocacy…
• United States v. Archer Parr, 516 F.2d 458 (5th Cir. 1975)
  …t of the government’s thesis that Parr controlled the District’s Special Account.” Viewing the prosecutor’s comment in “the context of the entire trial, and not in isolation,” United States v. Phillips, 8 Cir. 1973, 482 F. 2d 191, 196, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1114, 94 S.Ct. 846, 38 L.Ed.2d 741, we hold [*472] that Archer Parr was not deprived of a fair trial.24 VI THE RECANTATION PROVISION Archer Parr was given the Miranda warning. In addition to this, he contends that he should have been informed of the r…