ROSE

v.

OHIO

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Hutul, 416 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1969)
  …gation “unless the court otherwise directs.” The decision to direct that no presentence investigation be made rests in the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Fannon, 403 F. 2d 391, 394 (7th Cir. 1968), vacated on other grounds, 394 U.S. 457, 89 S.Ct. 1224, 22 L.Ed.2d 416; United States v. Karavias, 170 F. 2d 968 (7th Cir. 1948). Defendant Mitchell has failed to show an abuse of such discretion or how she was prejudiced by the absence of a presentence report. The record reveals that M…
• United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …encing was not an abuse of discretion.17 See United States v. Kane, 450 F. 2d 77 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 934, 92 S.Ct. 954, 30 L.Ed.2d 810 (1972); United States v. Fannon, 403 F. 2d 391, 394 (7th Cir. 1968), vacated on other grounds, 394 U.S. 457, 89 S.Ct. 1224, 22 L.Ed.2d 416 (1969). Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we find no reversible error. Therefore, the convictions of Chiantese and Cerrella are AFFIRMED. . The defendants were convicted of attempting to interfere with intersta…
• United States v. Earle T. Cook, 432 F.2d 1093 (7th Cir. 1970)
  …9, 24 L.Ed.2d 84 (1969), we only need to observe that no objection was made to the judge’s joint interrogation of the jurors and this issue was first raised on appeal. United States v. Fannon, 403 F. 2d 391 (7th Cir. 1968), vacated on other grounds, 394 U.S. 457, 89 S.Ct. 1224, 22 L.Ed.2d 416 (1969), is dis-positive of the issues here raised. Margóles, of course, emphasizes that the existence of prejudicial publicity before the trial presents different legal issues than does such publicity during the trial…