COTE

v.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

• Bova v. State, 392 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
  …d this sought-for-benefit, defendant cannot complain of a reasonable limitation. To hold otherwise would encourage a party to attempt to sow reversible error into the record. See United States v. Leighton, 386 F. 2d 822 (2d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1025, 88 S.Ct. 1412, 20 L.Ed.2d 282 (1968). Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order. Yet again we emphasize the narrow scope of our holding; it embraces a brief recess in the midst of cross-examination which did not usurp time cu…
• Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1976)
  …oner’s failure to claim any prejudice resulting from his inability to consult with counsel during one evening of the trial was fatal to his appeal. In so holding, the court relied on United States v. Leighton, 386 F. 2d 822 (CA2 1967), cert. denied, 390 U. S. 1025 (1968), dealing with a similar order applied to a noon recess, and rejected the Third Circuit’s position that prejudice need not be shown, United States v. Venuto, 182 F. 2d 519 (1950), in a case involving an overnight recess. The Court of Appeals a…
• United States v. Covello, 410 F.2d 536 (2d Cir. 1969)
  …t. 406, 15 L.Ed.2d 354 (1965); United States v. Wallace, 272 F.Supp. 838 (SDNY 1967); United States v. Cobb, 271 F.Supp. 159, 164 (SDNY 1967); United States v. Leighton, 265 F.Supp. 27, 35 (SDNY), affirmed, 386 F. 2d 822 (2 Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1025, 88 S.Ct. 1412, 20 L.Ed.2d 282 (1968); United States v. Tane, 29 F.R.D. 131, 133 (EDNY 1962); United States v. Abrams, 29 F.R.D. 178, 183 (SDNY 1961); United States v. Rosenberg, 157 F.Supp. 654, 661 (E.D.Pa.), affirmed, 257 F. 2d 760 (3 Cir. 1958),…