EDWARDS

v.

KANSAS

Citator

Cited By (26 total)

• United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1971)
  …ly mentioned) and have required a showing of actual prejudice: Schlinsky v. United States, 379 F. 2d 735, 737 (CA1 1967); Fleming v. United States, 378 F. 2d 502, 504 (CA1 1967); United States v. Capaldo, 402 F. 2d 821, 823 (CA2 1968), cert. denied, 394 U. S. 989 (1969); United States v. Simmons, 338 F. 2d 804, 806 (CA2 1964), cert. denied, 380 U. S. 983 (1965); United States v. Holiday, 319 F. 2d 775, 776 (CA2 1963); United States v. Hammond, 360 F. 2d 688, 689 (CA2 1966); United States v. Dickerson, 347 F.…
• United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1976)
  …have that attorney wait outside the grand jury room, and that he may at any and all times during questioning consult with the attorney prior to answering any question posed. See United States v. Capaldo, 402 F. 2d 821, 824 (CA2 1968), cert. denied, 394 U. S. 989 (1969); United States v. Pepe, 367 F. Supp. 1365, 1369 (Conn. 1973).22 [*606] At least if such minimal protections were present, a putative defendant would be able to consult with counsel prior to answering any question that he might in any way susp…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Marin, 669 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1982)
  …nited States v. Jamar, 561 F. 2d 1103 (2d Cir. 1977); Fed.R.Evid. § 106, Advisory Committee’s Note, or to ensure a “fair and impartial understanding” of the admitted portion, United States v. Capaldo, 402 F. 2d 821, 824 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 989, 89 S.Ct. 1476, 22 L.Ed.2d 764 (1969). The completeness doctrine does not, however, require introduction of portions of a statement that are neither explanatory of nor relevant to the admitted passages. See, [*85] e.g., United States v. McCorkle, 51…