-
205 F.2d 277·
9th Cir.·
1953-05-28
·cited 104×
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motions for a bill of particulars and access to records, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for tax evasion.
-
218 F.2d 869·
7th Cir.·
1955-01-12
·cited 100×
The court held that the burden of proving deductions or exclusions rests with the taxpayer once the government establishes unreported income, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or admitting evidence.
-
686 F.2d 1082·
5th Cir.·
1982-09-10
·cited 86×
The court held that the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence of government inducement to warrant an entrapment jury instruction and that the jury charge on aiding and abetting was adequate. The court also found that the denial of access to the informant's address, whil
-
212 F.2d 297·
3d Cir.·
1954-04-01
·cited 76×
The court held that the corroborating evidence presented for the first count of perjury was insufficient as a matter of law, and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence related to individuals not named in the original bills of particulars for the second count.
-
367 F.2d 258·
8th Cir.·
1966-10-21
·cited 58×
The court held that the trial judge's comments on evidence were not prejudicial and that the defendant was not deprived of rights under the Criminal Justice Act.
-
415 F.2d 158·
3d Cir.·
1969-08-19
·cited 54×
The court held that pre-indictment photographic identifications do not trigger the right to counsel under Wade and Gilbert, and that the identification procedures used were not unduly suggestive. The court also affirmed the denial of a preliminary hearing and bill of particulars,
-
481 F.2d 307·
9th Cir.·
1973-06-07
·cited 22×
The court held that the mailing of obscene advertisements and materials violates federal law and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding the indictment, jury selection, or the admission of evidence.
-
288 F.2d 398·
D.C. Cir.·
1961-03-16
·cited 18×
The court held that the indictment's first count was not fatally defective for failing to name the intended robbery victim, and that the two counts charged separate offenses.
-
272 F.2d 414·
5th Cir.·
1959-11-03
·cited 16×
The court held that indictments for counterfeiting offenses do not need to set forth the counterfeit instruments, as long as they sufficiently advise the defendant of the charge and prevent double jeopardy.
-
171 F.2d 642·
2d Cir.·
1948-12-23
·cited 14×
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to review an interlocutory order of a district judge, as the writ can only be issued in aid of appellate jurisdiction.
-
820 F.2d 572·
2d Cir.·
1987-06-05
·cited 13×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the appellants' motion for a bill of particulars, which was necessary for them to prepare an adequate defense.
-
184 F.2d 411·
3d Cir.·
1950-09-19
·cited 8×
The indictment must be dismissed because it is incomprehensible and fails to fairly apprise the defendant of the charges against him.
-
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.
-
260 F.2d 313·
8th Cir.·
1958-10-28
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying pre-trial motions, continuances, or witness exclusion, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.