WOOLLASTON

v.

MARONEY, CORRECTIONAL SUPERINTENDENT

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Annese, 631 F.2d 1041 (1st Cir. 1980)
  …ationship between White and the government. Had Nordeste or his counsel had a different view at the time of the trial they would undoubtedly have asked for such an instruction. Nordeste v. United States, 393 F. 2d 335, 339 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 878, 89 S.Ct. 178, 21 L.Ed.2d 151 (1968). Up until the part on agency, the instruction on the law of entrapment was clear, accurate and complete. If no instruction as to Busciglio’s role had been given, we would be tempted to find harmless error, espec…
• United States v. Conversano, 412 F.2d 1143 (3d Cir. 1969)
  …o take part in the scheme as outlined at the trial. The relationship of O’Donnell to the Government, whether as a paid informer or agent, was immaterial in this case. See Nordeste v. United States, 393 F. 2d 335, 338-339 (C.A. 9, 1968), cert. denied 393 U.S. 878, 89 S.Ct. 178, 21 L.Ed.2d 150. There was no evidence that he ever communicated with the defendant. The mere fact that a person is a link in a chain of people through whom a defendant ultimately meets up with an agent does not make that person an ent…
• Estrella v. United States, 429 F.2d 397 (9th Cir. 1970)
  …struction No objection to the instruction was made at trial: The consideration of the sufficiency of the instruction is foreclosed unless defendant demonstrates plain error. Nordeste v. United States, 393 F. 2d 335, 339-340 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 393 U.S. 878, 89 S.Ct. 178, 21 L.Ed.2d 151 (1968). He has not demonstrated such error. It was not error to submit the issue of entrapment to the jury.10 The judgment is affirmed. . Defendant was charged with four counts in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174 (possess…