OLOF N. TEVANDER ET AL.

v.

ELEANOR M. RUYSDAEL

Citator

Cited By

• Cammer v. United States, 223 F.2d 322 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
  …intent. It is sufficient if such acts and communications were knowingly and willfully done and had, and had the tendency to influence improperly the action of the jury.” Kelly v. United States, 9 Cir., 1918, 250 F. 947, 950, certiorari denied 1919, 248 U.S. 585, 39 S.Ct. 182, 63 L.Ed. 433. In Duke v. United States, 4 Cir., 1937, 90 F. 2d 840, 841, 112 A.L.R. 317, certiorari denied 1937, 302 U.S. 685, 58 S.Ct. 33, 82 L.Ed. 528, which arose under a statute which now appears at 18 U.S.C. § 1504 (1952), the d…
• United States v. Smith, 555 F.2d 249 (9th Cir. 1977)
  …that the appellant made the statement knowingly and intentionally to Gartner. We believe our holding is consistent with an early expression of this court on this subject appearing in Kelly v. United States, 250 F. 947 (9th Cir. 1918), cert, denied, 248 U.S. 585, 39 S.Ct. 182, 63 L.Ed. 433 (1919). We said: order that one may be held for contempt for communications with jurors, on the ground of the harmful tendency thereof, it is not necessary to prove that the communications had or the acts done were accom…

  ← 1 / 2 →