PRICE

v.

NEW YORK

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

• Gratton Earl Moore v. United States, 432 F.2d 730 (3d Cir. 1970)
  …array are waived unless raised by motion before trial has been treated as equally applicable to petit juries in Shotwell Manufacturing Company v. United States, supra. See also Pinkney v. United States, 380 F. 2d 882, 887 (5 Cir. 1967), cert. denied 390 U.S. 908, 88 S.Ct. 831, 19 L.Ed.2d 876 (1968) ; United States v. Hoffa, 349 F. 2d 20, 49 (6 Cir. 1965), aff’d 385 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966) ; contra: Fernandez v. Meier, 408 F. 2d 974 (9 Cir. 1969). The Jury Selection and Service Act of…
• United States v. Papia, 560 F.2d 827 (7th Cir. 1977)
  …dants, whether or not each was present when the act was done or such conversations were had or the statements were made.” . Unlike the midtrial instruction found defective in United States v. Allegretti, 340 F. 2d 243 (7th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 908, 88 S.Ct. 830, 19 L.Ed.2d 876 (1968), the instruction given in this case did not imply to the jury that the court already had found that a conspiracy existed and that each of the defendants were members of it. . Enea’s alternative argument that the…
• United States v. Burnis Bryant, 461 F.2d 912 (6th Cir. 1972)
  …sufficient to establish aiding and abetting unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a participant rather than merely a knowing spectator.” Pinkney v. United States, 380 F. 2d 882, 886 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 908, 88 S.Ct. 831, 19 L.Ed.2d 876 (1968). In fact, the jury was not even [*922] read the entire statute, which does include words such as “counsels” and “commands,” from which the jury might have inferred the requirement of the element of intent. Furth…