UNITED STATES

v.

DARBY

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985)
  …ion of the Court.” The note of the Advisory Committee to Rule 52(b) reads as follows: “This rule is a restatement of existing law, Wiborg v. United States, 163 U. S. 632, 658 . . . ; Hemphill v. United States, 112 F. 2d 505, C. C. A. 9th, reversed 312 U. S. 657, . . . conformed to 120 F. 2d 115, certiorari denied 314 U. S. 627 .... Rule 27 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 28 U. S. C. foil. § 354, provides that errors not specified will be disregarded, 'save as the court, at its option, may notice a plain…
• Miller v. United States, 317 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1942)
  …123 F. 2d 715. 124 F. 2d 849. 126 F. 2d 462. 28 U. S. C. § 832. 9 Comp. Gen. 503; Gf. 21 Comp. Gen. 347. 18 U. S. C. A. § 688ff. Bay v. United States, 301 U. S. 158, 164, 167; Holmes v. United States, 314 U. S. 583. Hemphill v. United States, 312 U. S. 657.…
• Cephus v. United States, 324 F.2d 893 (D.C. Cir. 1963)
  …er v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 218 F. 2d 39 (1954). The introduction of evidence after the denial of the motion does not “waive” the motion so as to prevent appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence. Hemphill v. United States, 312 U.S. 657, 61 S. Ct. 729, 85 L.Ed. 1106 (1941) (per curiam). If the denial of the motion was erroneous when made, it should be corrected on appeal. Few errors of law are as prejudicial to the defendant. Subsequent testimony cannot “cure” the error. See gene…

  ← 1 / 2 →