RAMM

v.

RAMM

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Zane, 495 F.2d 683 (2d Cir. 1974)
  …not to fall within the proscriptions of the hearsay rule, for Kaplan was available to testify in person. See United States v. Puco, 476 F. 2d 1099, 1106 (2d Cir. 1973); United States v. Jones, 400 F. 2d 134 (9th Cir. 1968), vacated on other grounds, 395 U.S. 462, 89 S.Ct. 2022, 23 L.Ed.2d 445 (1969). See also Rule 804 of the Proposed Rules of Evidence for the United States Courts and Magistrates, 51 F.R.D. 315, 438. Moreover, we find no basis under the declaration-against-penal-interest exception for admit…
• Jones v. United States, 443 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1971)
  …PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a reinstated judgment of conviction for having illegally imported heroin and illegally concealed marijuana. (See Jones v. United States, 400 F. 2d 134 (9th Cir. 1968) and 395 U.S. 462, 89 S.Ct. 2022, 23 L.Ed.2d 445 (1969)). The Solicitor General confessed the possibility of illegal surveillance. Having read Exhibit 1, sealed by the District Court Judge after he had examined it, and finding from a perusal thereof, as he did (Tr.,…