GREER

v.

PATE, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• Davis v. State, 383 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
  …33 (1963); Dobbins v. State, 114 Ga.App. 403, 151 S.E. 2d 549 (1966); Kansas City v. Garner, 430 S.W. 2d 630 (Kan.App.1968); State v. Dykes, 114 Ariz. 592, 562 P. 2d 1090 (App.1977); United States v. Pate, 393 F. 2d 44 (7th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 890, 89 S.Ct. 209, 21 L.Ed.2d 160 (1968). AFFIRMED. McCORD, ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.…
• United States v. Sisto, 534 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1976)
  …s failed to remember it, the making of the statement may be proved by another witness.” Id. These principles have long been supported by the decisions of this Circuit. See, e. g., Williams v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 394 F. 2d 821, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 890, 89 S.Ct. 211, 21 L.Ed.2d 169; Duarte v. United States, 5 Cir. 1949, 171 F. 2d 971. The cases dealing with cautionary instructions cited in the next section also recognize that prior inconsistent statements are admissible, at least for the purposes…
• United States v. Miller, 664 F.2d 94 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …t of the witness may be admitted for that purpose even though the statement tends directly to inculpate the defendant. See United States v. Sisto, 534 F. 2d 616, 622 (5th Cir. 1976); Williams v. United States, 394 F. 2d 821 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 890, 89 S.Ct. 211, 21 L.Ed.2d 169 (1968). Of course, the prosecutor may not use such a statement under the guise of impeachment for the primary purpose of placing before the jury substantive evidence which is not otherwise admissible. United States v. D…