HALL

v.

UNITED STATES; AND JAMES ET AL. V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (25 total)

• United States v. Pheaster, 544 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1976)
  …Davis if he wanted to reconsider his decision to remain silent, in view of the picture; the questioning did not resume until after Davis had voluntarily agreed that it should [see U. S. v. Jackson, 436 F. 2d 39, 40-41 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 906 [91 S.Ct. 2209, 29 L.Ed.2d 682] (1971)]. The Government has met its heavy burden of showing that Davis’s waiver of his rights to remain silent and to counsel, signed before he confessed, was made knowingly and intelligently. There is no evidence of…
• United States v. Ruggiero, 726 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1984)
  …me means and “no” to others, although unified consideration of the count might have produced an acquittal or at least a hung jury. These concerns apparently influenced the courts in United States v. James, 432 F. 2d 303 (5th Cir.1970), cert, denied, 403 U.S. 906, 91 S.Ct. 2214, 29 L.Ed.2d 682 (1971) (interrogatory asked jury to identify objects of a conspiracy); United States v. Spock, supra (identification of means of committing the offense); Gray v. United States, supra (same), although jury identificatio…
• Response OF Carolina, Inc. v. Leasco Response, Inc., 537 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1976)
  …nd resolute” insistence on compliance with the restriction [*1316] was necessary before a violation could be found.18 Id. at 406. Three years later, in Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. Olympia Brewing Company, 9 Cir. 1971, 440 F. 2d 21, cert. denied, 403 U.S. 906, 91 S.Ct. 2209, 29 L.Ed.2d 682, plaintiff beer distributor argued that defendant brewing company had imposed territorial restrictions upon the resale of its beer. However, the distributorship agreement contained no reference to territorial restricti…