PARSONS

v.

MOORE, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• The United States v. Levinson, 405 F.2d 971 (6th Cir. 1968)
  …sequent to the termination of the alleged conspiracy which are admissible if relevant to prove the conspiracy and which demonstrate its existence and illegal purposes. Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 73 S.Ct. 481, 97 L.Ed. 593, rehearing den. 345 U.S. 919, 73 S.Ct. 726, 97 L.Ed. 1352. Cerwin’s testimony was relevant to prove the aims of the conspirators and the manner in which similar frauds were perpetrated and as such were admissible against all appellants. Appellants Levinson and Franklin argue t…
• United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973)
  …ented to the District Court. The Government has argued that, whether the conspiracy had ended or not, the evidence was admissible under the principles enunciated in Lutwak v. United States (1953) 344 U.S. 604, 73 S.Ct. 481, 97 L.Ed. 593, reh. denied 345 U.S. 919, 73 S.Ct. 726, 97 L.Ed. 1352. Moreover, there necessarily arises the question whether, when the defendants have attempted to use by way of cross-examination the testimony given by certain of the Government witnesses in the election contest for pur…
• United States v. Leslie, 542 F.2d 285 (5th Cir. 1976)
  …within its discretion in calling the witnesses in order to prevent such an impairment of the fact-finding process. See United States v. Lutwak, 195 F. 2d 748, 754-55 (7th Cir. 1952), aff’d, 344 U.S. 604, 73 S.Ct. 481, 97 L.Ed. 593, rehearing denied, 345 U.S. 919, 73 S.Ct. 726, 97 L.Ed. 1352 (1953); Steinberg v. United States, 162 F. 2d 120, 124 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 808, 68 S.Ct. 108, 92 L.Ed. 386 (1947). Appellant also contends that the district court did not give the jury an adequate limitin…