HICKOCK

v.

ILLINOIS

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Esmael Gonzales Musquiz, 445 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1971)
  …he only evidence offered by the Government to link Musquiz with the charge of passing counterfeit money. We recognize that as a general rule questions of identification are for the Jury. Smith v. United States, 5th Cir., 358 F. 2d 695, cert. denied, 384 U.S. 971, 86 S.Ct. 1862, 16 L.Ed.2d 682 (1966). Nonetheless, when there are no other connecting or corroborating facts or circumstances, the identification becomes critical and this Court has held that, notwithstanding a jury verdict of guilty, when the ide…
• Phillips v. Rosenstiel, 490 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1973)
  …appellate courts reversed the annulment decree. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 21 A.D.2d 635, 253 N.Y.S.2d 206 (1st Dep’t 1964), rev’g 43 Misc.2d 462, 251 N.Y.S.2d 565 (Sup.Ct.), aff’d, 16 N.Y.2d 64, 262 N.Y.S.2d 86, 209 N.E. 2d 709 (1965), cert, denied, 384 U.S. 971, 86 S.Ct. 1861, 16 L.Ed.2d 682 (1966). The parties then returned to the New York State Supreme Court for a determination of the support and maintenance payments due to Susan during the separation, and the counsel fees that should be awarded her la…
• United States v. Bynum, 566 F.2d 914 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …time and one erroneous identification of the defendant. This court stated “[t]he jury is free to believe the testimony of one witness and reject the testimony of another.” See also Smith v. United States, 358 F. 2d 695 (5th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 971, 86 S.Ct. 1862, 16 L.Ed.2d 682 (1966). In the case at bar the jury had testimony which easily placed Becker at the auto tag agency. Brewer’s inability to identify Becker was a factor the jury would have to consider in determining whether to give hi…