RAMEY

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Parman v. United States, 399 F.2d 559 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
  …26 U.S.App.D.C. 98, 374 F. 2d 312 (1967); Perry v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 29, 347 F. 2d 813 (1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 959, 86 S.Ct. 438, 15 L.Ed.2d 362 (1965) ; Ramey v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 355, 336 F. 2d 743, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 840, 85 S.Ct. 79, 13 L.Ed.2d 47 (1964); Heideman v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 128, 259 F. 2d 943 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 959, 79 S.Ct. 800, 3 L.Ed.2d 767 (1959); Perry v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 253 F. 2d 337 (1957), cert. deni…
• United States v. Pellegrino, 470 F.2d 1205 (2d Cir. 1972)
  …to object to the judge’s answer to the question posed by the jury and since the answer was not “plain error” they are precluded from raising the objection here. See Ramey v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 336 F. 2d 743, 744-745, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 840, 85 S.Ct. 79, 13 L.Ed.2d 47 (1964). Lastly, appellants contend that their motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was erroneously denied by the district court. It is well settled that appellate deference is given, however, to the…
• Mathies v. United States, 374 F.2d 312 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
  …nterval was unnecessarily prolonged, e.g., Perry v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 253 F. 2d 337 (1957), cert, denied, 356 U.S. 941, 78 S.Ct. 785, 2 L.Ed.2d 816 (1958); Ramey v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 355, 336 F. 2d 743, cert, denied, 379 U.S. 840, 85 S.Ct. 79, 13 L.Ed.2d 47 (1964)2 And delay after admissible statements have been made does not affect their admissibility under Mallory. United States v. Mitchell, supra; Heideman v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 128, 130, 259 F. 2d 943, 945 (1…