HARDY ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
  …on the jury’s decision that it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion. In two past decisions we have upheld denials of a mistrial after far more hazardous blurtings. In Hardy v. United States, 343 F. 2d 233, 234 (D.C.Cir.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 984, 85 S.Ct. 1353, 14 L.Ed. 2d 276 (1965), a witness was asked if he had ever previously seen the defendant, and replied in the affirmative, explaining that “we had did [sic ] time in the penitentiary together.” Similarly, in McIntosh v. United States,…
• United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1968)
  …ranting a mistrial. Reistroffer v. United States, 258 F. 2d 379 (C.A. 8), cert. den. 358 U.S. 927, 79 S.Ct. 313, 3 L.Ed.2d 301; Leonard v. United States, 386 F. 2d 423 (C.A. 5); Hardy v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 364, 343 F. 2d 233, cert. den. 380 U.S. 984, 85 S.Ct. 1353, 14 L.Ed. 2d 276. In some cases it has been held that the error cannot be cured by instructions to the jury to disregard the testimony. Maestas v. United States, 341 F. 2d 493 (C.A. 10); United States v. Rinaldi, 301 F. 2d 576 (C.A. 2…
• United States v. Dunn, 459 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
  …243, 393 F. 2d 352 (1968); Mathies v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 98, 374 F. 2d 312 (1967); Hedgepeth v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 19, 365 F. 2d 952 (1966); Hardy v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 364, 343 F. 2d 233 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 984, 85 S.Ct. 1353, 14 L.Ed.2d 276 (1965); Smith v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 38, 331 F. 2d 784 (en banc, 1964); Mann v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 27, 304 F. 2d 394 (1962). . See United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 86 S.Ct. 773, 15 L.Ed.2…