HELLAND

v.

RHAY, PENITENTIARY SUPERINTENDENT

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Kelly, 349 F.2d 720 (2d Cir. 1965)
  …or otherwise, that might accrue from such service. See also United States v. Woodner, 2 Cir., 1963, 317 F. 2d 649, 651, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 903, 84 S.Ct. 192, 11 L.Ed.2d 144; United States v. Henderson, 7 Cir., 1962, 298 F. 2d 522, cert. denied, 369 U.S. 878, 82 S.Ct. 1150, 8 L.Ed.2d 280. Nor do we find anything which undermines the proposition that, as a practical matter and subject to proper supervision by the District Courts, jury officials must be vested with a large measure of discretion to determi…
• United States v. Ralph "Whitey" Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069 (2d Cir. 1969)
  …nable methods of jury selection which are in no way inconsistent with the [*1079] Federal standards. Hoyt v. State of Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 82 S.Ct. 159, 7 L. Ed.2d 118 (1961); United States v. Henderson, 298 F. 2d 522 (7th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 878, 82 S.Ct. 1150, 8 L.Ed.2d 280 (1962). There has been no suggestion that the Connecticut selection procedure was not a random selection or that the selection produced by the system did not represent a fair cross-section of the communnity or that it…
• Ross v. United States, 374 F.2d 97 (8th Cir. 1967)
  …reference to “other writing”, has been held to have application to a forged endorsement. Prussian v. United States, 282 U.S. 675, 679-680, 51 S.Ct. 223, 75 L.Ed. 610 (1931); United States v. Henderson, 298 F. 2d 522, 526 (7 Cir. 1962), cert, denied 369 U.S. 878, 82 S.Ct. 1150, 8 L.Ed.2d 280; Roberts v. United States, 331 F. 2d 502, 505 (9 Cir. 1964). Compare Streett v. United States, 331 F. 2d 151 (8 Cir. 1964), and Hall v. United States, 372 F. 2d 603 (8 Cir. 1967), relating to 18 U.S.C. § 2314, and Rober…