LYONS

v.

NEW YORK

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1976)
  …t 345, 346. E. g., Hooley v. United States, 209 F. 2d 234, 235 (CA1 1954); United States v. Pepe, 367 F. Supp. 1365, 1367, 1370 (Conn. 1973); United States v. Garnes, 156 F. Supp. 467, 469 (SDNY 1957), aff’d, 258 F. 2d 530 (CA2 1958), cert. denied, 359 U. S. 937 (1959). Federal prosecutors, it has been asserted, have also taken advantage of the de jacto/de jure distinction to postpone indictments and thereby utilize the subpoena power of the grand jury to obtain discovery in evasion of the strictures on Go…
• Fuller v. United States, 407 F.2d 1199 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
  …ictions of the same or included offenses, on a theory that parole or pardon may conceivably be affected thereby. See, e.g., Audett v. United States, 265 F. 2d 837 (9th Cir. 1959); Dailey v. United States, 259 F. 2d 433 (7th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 937, 79 S.Ct. 653, 3 L.Ed.2d 638 (1959); United States v. Machibroda, 338 F. 2d 947 (6th Cir. 1964) (dictum). Although we think it very unlikely that parole or pardon for murder will be adversely affected by a concurrent sentence for manslaughter, we se…
• Sterling H. Nickens v. United States, 323 F.2d 808 (D.C. Cir. 1963)
  …transcript of a first trial may be required for effective defense in a second trial. Compare Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962); Whitt v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 259 F. 2d 158 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 937, 79 S.Ct. 652, 3 L.Ed.2d 637 (1959). But, under the circumstances here, the failure to order a transcript does not appear to be reversible error. VI. Appellant also suggests that the evidence showed entrapment as a matter of law. It did not, thou…