ARMSTRONG

v.

UNITED STATES; STONEHILL ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; BLUMCRAFT OF PITTSBURGH V. CITIZENS & SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA ET AL.; WECHSLER V. UNITED STATES; TOONI ET AL. V. ZUCKERT, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE; STURM V. CALIFORNIA ADULT AUTHORITY ET AL.; JAMISON V. UNITED STATES; ANDERSON V. SOUTH CAROLINA; HARRIS V. ILLINOIS; RUPPERT V. LAVALLEE, WARDEN; CAVANAUGH V. CALIFORNIA; BARBEE V. TEXAS; THERIAULT V. UNITED STATES; PETERSON ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; HOUSE V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Skillman, 442 F.2d 542 (8th Cir. 1971)
  …upport the jury’s actions and conclusions. United States v. Marttila, supra; United States v. Fryer, supra; Peterson v. United States, 405 F. 2d 102 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 938, 89 S.Ct. 2003, 23 L.Ed.2d 453 (1969), rehearing denied, 396 U.S. 870, 90 S.Ct. 43, 24 L.Ed.2d 128 (1969); Cave v. United States, 390 F. 2d 58 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 906, 88 S.Ct. 2059, 20 L.Ed.2d 1365 (1968); Phelps v. United States, 160 F. 2d 858 (8th Cir. 1947), rehearing denied, 161 F. 2d 940 (8th…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• United States v. Rose, 570 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1978)
  …pated in the raids so as to convert them into joint ventures between the United States and the foreign officials. Stonehill v. United States, 405 F. 2d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 960, 89 S.Ct. 2102, 23 L.Ed.2d 747 reh. denied, 396 U.S. 870, 90 S.Ct. 39, 24 L.Ed.2d 125 (1969). In this case, the United States Customs officials conveyed their suspicions about Rose’s luggage to the Canadian police, but they neither directed nor requested that the Canadians search the luggage. United Stat…
• United States v. Schmidt, 573 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir. 1978)
  …ll not be suppressed because of illegal conduct by foreign officials which violates the Fourth Amendment. Stonehill v. United States, 405 F. 2d 738, 742-44 (9 Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 960, 89 S.Ct. 2102, 23 L.Ed.2d 747 (1969), reh. denied, 396 U.S. 870, 90 S.Ct. 39, 24 L.Ed.2d 125 (1969). Rather, he contends the physical evidence was a product of his coerced confession making its introduction at trial a violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This argument depends on (1…