THOMPSON

v.

ANDERSON, JAIL SUPERINTENDENT

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

• United States v. Somers, 496 F.2d 723 (3d Cir. 1974)
  …e firms ?” [*742] We do not decide whether this comment was improper. Fatal to Somers’ contention is the fact that his counsel did not object to the above remarks at trial. In United States v. Lawson, 337 F. 2d 800, 807 (3d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 919, 85 S.Ct. 913, 13 L.Ed.2d 804 (1965), this Court held that a failure to object to improprieties in a closing argument precluded appellate review in all cases except where “plain error” is established. The impressive burden placed upon appellant is j…
• Oshatz v. United States, 404 F.2d 9 (9th Cir. 1968)
  …ssful where the procedural irregularities are minor and the registrant has not been prejudiced because of them. See, e. g., Edwards v. United States, 395 F. 2d 453 (9th Cir. 1968); United States v. Lawson, 337 F. 2d 800 (3d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 919, 85 S.Ct. 913, 13 L.Ed.2d 804 (1965). Courts have responded to the necessity of “balancing between the demands of an effective system for mobilizing the Nation’s manpower in times of crisis and the demands of fairness toward the individual registran…
• United States v. Powers, 413 F.2d 834 (1st Cir. 1969)
  …uch orders, but see United States v. Crowley, 405 F. 2d 400, 403 (4th Cir. [*839] 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 904, 89 S. Ct. 1011, 22 L.Ed.2d 215 (1969); United States v. Lawson, 337 F. 2d 800 (3d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, Lawson v. United States, 380 U.S. 919, 85 S.Ct. 913, 13 L. Ed.2d 804 (1965), that is not this case.5 The Selection Issue Not to be confused with appellant’s signature argument is his contention that “the order for the defendant to report for induction was not authorized by the local b…