MCDANIEL

v.

SHERIFF OF DALLAS COUNTY

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Barnes, 486 F.2d 776 (8th Cir. 1973)
  …ted to produce the informant for interview prior to trial. It argues that the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation does not involve pretrial disclosure, citing United States ex rel. Meadows v. New York, 426 F. 2d 1176 (2d Cir. 1970), cert, denied, 401 U.S. 941, 91 S.Ct. 944, 28 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971) . Although we agree with the latter contention, under the facts presented here, where the informant is shown to be a material witness and the government does not plan to use the informant as a witness 5 it owes a…
• Rice v. Wolff, 513 F.2d 1280 (8th Cir. 1975)
  …is not necessary that the state courts must have ruled on the merits of an issue before the question can be considered by the federal judiciary in a habeas action. United States ex rel. Meadows v. State, 426 F. 2d 1176 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 941, 91 S.Ct. 944, 28 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971); Losieau v. Sigler, 421 F. 2d 825 (8th Cir. 1970). It is enough that the state courts have been presented the opportunity to rule on the questions raised by the petitioner in his federal petition. Picard v. Conno…
• United States v. Coven, 662 F.2d 162 (2d Cir. 1981)
  …However, Agent Livertucci was never called as a witness against Coven and O’Connor and therefore no Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were implicated. United States ex rel. Meadows v. New York, 426 F. 2d 1176, 1184 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 941, 91 S.Ct. 944, 28 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971). Furthermore, an in camera interview is expressly authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3500(c), and neither Coven nor O’Connor objected when the court announced its intention to conduct such an interview. Also, we have exam…