-
590 F.2d 816·
6th Cir.·
1979-01-29
·cited 2×
The court held that defendants waived their right to a record of in camera juror interviews by not objecting and that no harm resulted from the unrecorded interviews.
-
570 F.2d 584·
6th Cir.·
1977-10-19
·cited 2×
The court denied the motion for rehearing but granted the motion for a stay of mandate pending application for certiorari.
-
543 F.2d 572·
5th Cir.·
1976-12-06
·cited 2×
A guilty plea, voluntarily and intelligently entered, precludes independent claims relating to constitutional rights that occurred prior to the plea, including venue objections.
-
455 F.2d 644·
4th Cir.·
1972-02-28
·cited 2×
The court held that a prosecutor's misstatement to the jury, implying a defense witness's story was recently fabricated, was not harmless error and warranted a new trial.
-
395 F.2d 205·
5th Cir.·
1968-05-09
·cited 2×
The court held that the admission of a photostatic copy of a rental contract was harmless error, and the admission of credit cards and evidence of their use was proper.
-
232 F.2d 500·
1st Cir.·
1956-04-26
·cited 2×
The court held that the defendant's sentence was not illegally imposed, even if the information regarding his prior conviction was stamped as filed after sentencing, because the information was before the court and the defendant was aware of it.
-
995 F.2d 480·
4th Cir.·
1993-05-28
·cited 1×
The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, the trial court did not err in refusing jury instructions on multiple conspiracies and the buyer-seller defense, the admission of evidence of
-
985 F.2d 1284·
4th Cir.·
1993-02-10
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the structuring and money laundering charges, the jury instructions were not plainly erroneous, and the statute was constitutional as applied.
-
983 F.2d 1480·
8th Cir.·
1993-01-27
The court held that the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in jury selection, the stipulation regarding Indian country was sufficient, and evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were either not erroneous or constitut
-
949 F.2d 970·
8th Cir.·
1991-11-21
The court held that the improper exclusion of a key witness's prior testimony, which was not harmless error, required reversal of the conviction and remand for a new trial.
-
897 F.2d 162·
5th Cir.·
1990-03-13
The court held that admitting sample food stamps into evidence, even without proper authentication, was harmless error, and the jury instructions on aiding and abetting were adequate.
-
831 F.2d 819·
8th Cir.·
1987-10-27
The court held that a subsequent guilty verdict by the petit jury renders harmless any conceivable error in the grand jury charging decision, including alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
-
711 F.2d 570·
4th Cir.·
1983-06-27
-
450 F.2d 873·
1st Cir.·
1971-11-09
The court held that the evidence of morphine sulphate did not exceed the bill of particulars and that the defendant's objection to the jury instructions was untimely.
-
445 F.2d 856·
9th Cir.·
1971-07-07
The court held that the defense counsel's failure to cross-examine a prosecution witness was harmless error under Rule 52(a).
-
363 F.2d 834·
6th Cir.·
1966-07-20
The court held that the Escobedo decision does not apply retroactively to cases finalized before its decision, and any potential error in counsel provision did not affect substantial rights.
-
281 F.2d 551·
6th Cir.·
1960-07-20
The court held that the exclusion of defendant's photographs, while error, was harmless given the overwhelming identification evidence.
-
264 F.2d 377·
D.C. Cir.·
1958-10-17
The court held that a statement taken from an arrested person during an unnecessary delay in arraignment is inadmissible under Mallory v. United States, even if exculpatory, and its admission can be prejudicial error.
-
256 F.2d 82·
6th Cir.·
1958-06-02
An indictment signed by an assistant United States Attorney is valid and does not require the signature of the United States Attorney.
-
218 F.2d 290·
8th Cir.·
1955-01-21
The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal, and that the appellant received a fair trial.