TAGGART

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Caldwell, 543 F.2d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
  …and not material to the substantive crimes charged, is not a “relevant . . . statement” within the meaning of Rule 16.1 United States v. Hodges, 480 F. 2d 229 (10th Cir. 1973); United States v. Skillman, 442 F. 2d 542, 550 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 833, 92 S.Ct. 82, 30 L.Ed.2d 63 (1971). See Notes of Advisory Committee on Rule 16(a)(1). The word “relevant” in the Rule is not an idle word. It means something. Relevant to what? The obvious intent is to refer to statements that were “relevant” to the…
• United States v. Hyman, 741 F.2d 906 (7th Cir. 1984)
  …ple purchaser of stolen goods is incorrect. See United States v. Greer, 467 F. 2d 1064, 1070 (7th Cir.1972), cert, denied, 410 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 1364, 35 L.Ed.2d 590 (1973); United States v. Skillman, 442 F. 2d 542, 547-48 (8th Cir.), cert, denied, 404 U.S. 833, 92 S.Ct. 82, 30 L.Ed.2d 63 (1971). The government’s characterization of the defendant’s involvement as that of a “middleman” is more accurate. We think there was sufficient evidence to establish more than a mere buyer-seller arrangement, and thus s…
• Holmes v. Waldon V. Burr, 486 F.2d 55 (9th Cir. 1973)
  …held to control the admission into evidence for corroboration purposes of a recorded telephone conversation between a government witness and the defendant, Katz not controlling; United States v. Skillman, 442 F. 2d 542 (8th Cir. 1971), cert, denied, 404 U.S. 833, 92 S.Ct. 82, 30 L.Ed.2d 63 (1971), in which the recorded conversation of the defendant and a co-conspirator was admitted into evidence for the purpose of impeachment on the basis of Lopez. The Government argues that on the facts of this case, Katz…