AGNEW

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

• United States v. Franklin, 902 F.2d 501 (7th Cir. 1990)
  …mitigation of his sentence. Thus, this case differs from those in which a remand for resentencing was necessary because the judge did not address the defendant by name, see United States v. Van Drunen, 501 F. 2d 1393, 1399 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1091, 95 S.Ct. 684, 42 L.Ed.2d 684 (1974); United States v. Posner, 868 F. 2d 720, 724 (5th Cir.1989), or because the judge asked the defendant why sentence should not be imposed instead of whether defendant had a statement about mitigation of punishment…
• United States v. Mendoza, 574 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …th spouses participated would offend neither the family harmony nor the public interest of which the Supreme Court spoke so protectively in Hawkins v. United States, supra. See United States v. Van Drunen, 7 Cir., 501 F. 2d 1393, 1396, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1091, 95 S.Ct. 684, 42 L.Ed.2d 684 (1974); United States v. Doughty, supra, 460 F. 2d at 1363-64. See also United States v. Pugliese, 2 Cir., 1945, [*1381] 153 F. 2d 497, 500. The Second Circuit adopted the rule of the Seventh Circuit in United States v.…
• United States v. Gardner, 516 F.2d 334 (7th Cir. 1975)
  …though the defendant initially objected to the instruction as a whole, there was no subsequent objection which would have brought the matter to the attention of the court. In United States v. Van Drunen, 501 F. 2d 1393, 1395 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 419 U.S. 1091, 95 S.Ct. 684, 42 L.Ed.2d 684 (1974), we stated: “The policy reasons for requiring trial errors to be brought to the attention of the trial judge are never stronger than when the error is a completely unintentional slip of the tongue.” The misstatem…