OLIVER

v.

CONNECTICUT

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 958 (9th Cir. 1977)
  …Jury Practice and Instructions § 13.13 (2d ed. 1970). . Motions to dismiss an indictment must be made before trial or they are waived. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2), (f); see, e. g., Mitchell v. United States, 434 F. 2d 230 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 946, 91 S.Ct. 1636, 29 L.Ed.2d 115 (1971). The trial court may, however, defer determination of the motion, Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e), or grant relief from the waiver for good cause. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f). Cassidy failed to include this ground in his pretrial m…
• United States v. Mallah, 503 F.2d 971 (2d Cir. 1974)
  …Although extrinsic evidence is admissible to show a special motive to lie or fabricate a case against a defendant, United States v. Kinnard, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 386, 465 F. 2d 566 (1972); United States v. Haggett, 438 F. 2d 396 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 946, 91 S.Ct. 1638, 29 L.Ed.2d 115 (1971), the evidence in dispute here is not probative in that respect. The extortion scheme was directed against Sam Kaplan, not against any of the defendants in this case. Thus, this disputed [*977] evidence is more…
• United States v. Kahn, 472 F.2d 272 (2d Cir. 1973)
  …th me.” Judge Motley excluded that statement as an attempt to impeach a witness through collateral matters. Kahn, citing cases that hold that bias is never a collateral matter, e. g., United States v. Haggett, 438 F. 2d 396 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 946, 91 S.Ct. 1638, 29 L.Ed.2d 115 (1971), claims that the statement exposed Tompkins as vindictive, and showed his clear motive to lie on the stand. But, at least on its face, the excluded statement is not convincing evidence of bias. The more likely r…