COLLINS

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By

• Koolish v. United States, 340 F.2d 513 (8th Cir. 1965)
  …a jury question, since it is a question of fact as to the nature of the agreement.” United States v. Crosby, 2 Cir., 1961, 294 F. 2d 928, 945, certiorari denied Mittleman v. United States, 368 U.S. 984, 82 S.Ct. 599, 7 L.Ed.2d 523, rehearing denied 369 U.S. 881, 82 S.Ct. 1138, 8 L.Ed.2d 285. We find no merit in the appellants’ second contention. Appellants’ third claim of error is: THE COURT FAILED TO SAFEGUARD THE DEFENDANTS FROM EXCESSIVE PREJUDICIAL NEWSPAPER, RADIO AND TELEVISION PUBLICITY WHICH DEPR…
• United States v. Porter, 441 F.2d 1204 (8th Cir. 1971)
  …a jury question, since it is a question of fact as to the nature of the agreement.’ United States v. Crosby, 2 Cir., 1961, 294 F. 2d 928, 945, certiorari denied Mittleman v. United States, 368 U.S. 984, 82 S.Ct. 599, 7 L.Ed.2d 523, rehearing denied 369 U.S. 881, 82 S.Ct. 1138, 8 L.Ed.2d 285.” 340 F. 2d at 525-526. . There are numerous instances which are challenged. For example, on more than one occasion defense counsel was adminished for “deliberate tactics” and on [*1214] another for “blowing smoke ring…
• United States v. Pope, 415 F.2d 685 (8th Cir. 1969)
  …s, 299 F. 2d 389 (8th Cir. 1962); United States v. Crosby, 294 F. 2d 928, 951 (2d Cir. 1961), cert. denied. [Mettleman v. U. S., Pettit v. U. S., and Meredith v. U. S., 368 U.S. 984, 82 S.Ct. 599, 7 L.Ed.2d 523] rehearing denied, Mettleman v. U. S., 369 U.S. 881, 82 S.Ct. 1138, 8 L.Ed.2d 285 (1962). Defendant speculates that a letter from the United States Attorney in Jacks on, Miss, to postal inspector Davis was crucial to his defense. This letter followed an investigation by the United States Attorney of…