MULLEN

v.

SCHNECKLOTH, SUPERINTENDENT, WASHINGTON STATE PENITENTIARY

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Garguilo, 310 F.2d 249 (2d Cir. 1962)
  …carries the doctrine of self-incrimination to an absurdity.” See also United States v. Tannuzzo, 174 F. 2d 177 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 815, 70 S.Ct. 38, 94 L.Ed. 493 (1949); United States v. Piscitello, 231 F. 2d 443 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 857, 77 S.Ct. 89, 1 L.Ed.2d 68 (1956). It is far from clear that such an instruction is prejudicial to a defendant; the chances are rather that it is helpful. The jurors have observed the defendant’s failure to take the stand; in the absence of instru…
• United States v. Perez, 457 F.2d 555 (6th Cir. 1972)
  …his discretion in ordering them to be confined at Lexington. It appears without question that the defendants were in the custody of the Attorney General at the time of escape. United States v. Piscitello, 231 F. 2d 443 (2nd Cir., 1956), cert. den., 352 U.S. 857, 77 S.Ct. 89, 1 L.Ed.2d 68 (1956). Therefore, the proper statute to be utilized in connection with the prosecution of the defendants was 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). This is not to say that the con [*559] viction must be reversed and the indictments dismisse…
• United States v. Schaffer, 664 F.2d 824 (11th Cir. 1981)
  …the custody of the Attorney General. U. S. v. Cluck, 542 F. 2d 728 (8th Cir.) cert. denied 429 U.S. 986, 97 S.Ct. 506, 50 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976); Frazier v. U. S., 339 F. 2d 745 (D.C. Cir.1964); U. S. v. Piscitello, 231 F. 2d 443 (2d Cir.) cert. denied 352 U.S. 857, 77 S.Ct. 89, 1 L.Ed.2d 68 (1956). The defendant contends that contracts between FCI and the hospital did not appropriately designate the hospital as a place of confinement and that the contracts were erroneously admitted into evidence because not…