BROWN

v.

UNITED STATES; AND JONES V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (36 total)

• Byrd v. Louie L. Wainwright, 428 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1970)
  …s to trial preparation ? There is no duty to sever merely because potentially exculpatory testimony of a codefendant exists. The defendant-movant must desire to use it. Brown v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 134, 375 F. 2d 310, 317, cert. denied, 388 U.S. 915, 87 S.Ct. 2133, 18 L.Ed.2d 1359 (1967). The desire of Byrd was plain and was asserted earnestly and repetitiously by his counsel, with full exploration of reasons. We reject the underlying implication of the state that as a matter of law there must…
• United States v. Calabro, 467 F.2d 973 (2d Cir. 1972)
  …F. 2d 179 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Genovese v. United States, 362 U.S. 974, 80 S.Ct. 1059, 4 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1960); the fit thrown by the insane co-defendant in Brown v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 134, 375 F. 2d 310 (1966), cert. denied, 388 U.S. 915, 87 S.Ct. 2133, 18 L.Ed.2d 1359 (1967); or the presence of the manacled co-defendant in McDonald v. United States, 89 F. 2d 128 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 301 U.S. 697, 57 S.Ct. 925, [*988] 81 L.Ed. 1352 (1937), none of which was held to warrant seve…
• United States v. Ramirez, 710 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1988)
  …ind the same coercive influence that mandated reversal in Jenkins. First, the district court in this case did not tell the jurors that they had to reach a dispositive verdict. See Walsh v. United States, 371 F. 2d 135, 136 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 388 U.S. 915, 87 S.Ct. 2130, 18 L.Ed.2d 1357 (1967). Nor did the jury understand the court to be insisting on a dis-positive verdict. The jury deliberated for a full day after receiving the court’s admonition. Compare United States v. Beattie, 613 F. 2d 762, 765…