THOMPSON

v.

THOMPSON ET AL.; HALL V. UNITED STATES; HENDRICKS V. WAINWRIGHT, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR; BELTOWSKI V. LARSON, JUDGE; OSBORNE V. UNITED STATES; BROWN V. UNITED STATES; BROWN V. INDIANA; CEPERO V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF PUERTO RICO; PATTERSON ET AL. V. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.; LLANES V. UNITED STATES; GILMORE V. REAGAN ET AL.; CEPERO V. COLON ET AL.; WILLIAMS V. WILSON, WARDEN; LUXEM V. CALIFORNIA; HENSLEY ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; SKOLNICK V. FEDERAL CIRCUIT JUDGES OF SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Citator

Cited By

• Miller v. United States, 410 F.2d 1290 (8th Cir. 1969)
  …v. United States, 393 F. 2d 604, 607 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 836, 89 S.Ct. 110, 21 L.Ed.2d 106 (1968); United States v. Hensley, 374 F. 2d 341, 352 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 388 U.S. 923, 87 S.Ct. 2139, 18 L.Ed.2d 1373, rehearing denied, 389 U.S. 891, 88 S.Ct. 25, 19 L.Ed.2d 210 (1967); United States v. Bryant, 364 F. 2d 598, 603 (4th Cir.1966); Pegram v. United States, 361 F. 2d 820, 821 (8th Cir.1966). By way of summary, it is abundantly clear that (1) a single conspiracy was formed with one…
• United States v. Johnson, 414 F.2d 22 (6th Cir. 1969)
  ….S. 395, 400, 79 S.Ct. 1237, 3 L.Ed.2d 1323, rehearing denied, 361 U.S. 855, 80 S.Ct. 42, 4 L.Ed.2d 94 (1959); United States v. Hensley, 374 F. 2d 341, 352-353 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 388 U.S. 923, 87 S.Ct. 2139, 18 L.Ed.2d 1373, rehearing denied, 389 U.S. 891, 88 S.Ct. 25, 19 L.Ed.2d 210 (1967). As to this issue we find no error. We read the dissent as suggesting that pretrial discovery of grand jury proceedings be granted generally to defendants on a request stating that it is necessary for preparation…
• Rios-Ramirez v. United States, 403 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1968)
  …her, grounds. Thus, this possible objection was waived. Good v. United States, 378 F. 2d 934, 936 (9th Cir. 1967); Osborne v. United States, 371 F. 2d 913, 921 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 946, 87 S.Ct. 2082, 18 L.Ed.2d 1335, rehearing denied, 389 U.S. 891, 88 [*1018] S.Ct. 23, 19 L.Ed.2d 207 (1967). As previously discussed, appellant’s constitutional rights were safeguarded by virtue of the fact that he could confront and cross-examine the hearsay declarant. For the reasons herein stated, we find no…