WHITFIELD ET AL.

v.

KLEIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Braasch, 505 F.2d 139 (7th Cir. 1974)
  …in the “little club” conspiracy charged in the indictment. We have no reason to doubt the effectiveness of these carefully drawn instructions. See United States v. Pauldino, 443 F. 2d 1108, 1114 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, Bridwell v. United States, 404 U.S. 882, 92 S.Ct. 204, 30 L.Ed.2d 163 (1971). The jury verdict — in .which four of the twenty three defendants were acquitted — itself supports this conclusion. Appellant Braasch additionally claims that his constitutional right to be informed of the natu…
• United States v. Rodriguez, 612 F.2d 906 (5th Cir. 1980)
  …,' as well as 18 U.S.C.A. § 1509, proscribing conspiracy to interfere with a court order. We have tacitly disagreed. Hayes v. United States, 464 F. 2d 1252 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Hayes and McMaster, 444 F. 2d 472 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 882, 92 S.Ct. 210, 30 L.Ed.2d 163 (1971). Fruit reinforces the notion that Adcock was decided without reference to congressional intent, since Fruit simply stated Adcock’s “one conspiracy, ergo one sentence” rule and proceeded to apply it, despite the d…
• United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1980)
  …the truth of what it said — without different or limiting instructions to the jury. Rosenstein distinguished Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96, 54 S.Ct. 22, 78 L.Ed. 196 (1933), and United States v. DeMasi, 445 F. 2d 251 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 882, 92 S.Ct. 211, 30 L.Ed.2d 164 (1971), as cases where erroneous plenary admission of hearsay could not be justified by the more limited theory of proof of the declarant’s state of mind. See 474 F. 2d at 710-11. In the present case, whether Picardo’s…