BOSTICK

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• United States v. Cozzetti, 441 F.2d 344 (9th Cir. 1971)
  …g of abuse. Moreover, notwithstanding a violation of the court’s sequestration order, it is within the trial court’s discretionary power to fashion an appropriate remedy.” Buick v. United States (9 Cir. 1968) 396 F. 2d 912, 914, [*350] cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1068, 89 S.Ct. 724, 21 L.Ed.2d 711 (1969) (citations omitted). The purpose of the rule of exclusion is to prevent the shaping of testimony by witnesses to match that given by other witnesses, Taylor v. United States (9 Cir. 1967) 388 F. 2d 786, 788. The…
• United States v. Williams, 523 F.2d 1203 (5th Cir. 1975)
  …tes v. Texas, supra, the character of those comments, see [*1210] Beck v. Washington, 1962, 369 U.S. 541, 82 S.Ct. 955, 8 L.Ed.2d 98, their proximity to the time of trial, see Bostick v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 400 F. 2d 449, cert. denied, 1969, 393 U.S. 1068, 89 S.Ct. 725, 21 L.Ed.2d 712, and the familiarity of (he panel members with the crime charged, see Hale v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 435 F. 2d 737, all suggest the probability of a proceeding not limited to evidence properly introduced before the…
• Hinton v. United States, 424 F.2d 876 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
  …2d 312, 314 n. 1 (1967); James v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 263, 261 F. 2d 381 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 930, 79 S.Ct. 613, 3 L.Ed.2d 631 (1959). But see Harling v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 327, 401 F. 2d 392 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1068, 89 S.Ct. 725, 21 L.Ed.2d 711 (1969). . Smith v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 38, 41, 331 F. 2d 784, 787 (en banc 1964). . Hedgepeth v. United States (Hedgepeth I), supra note 15, 124 U.S.App.D.C. at 295, 364 F. 2d at 688. . Nonetheless, we do…