SPINKS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (25 total)

• Vivienne Brown and Arthur Brown v. TAN, 395 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
  …ere is no showing that interest of children demand change). See also Brown v. Brown, 388 So. 2d 623 (Fla.4th DCA 1980); Trujillo v. Trujillo, 378 So. 2d 812 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Scarpetta v. DeMartino, 254 So. 2d 813 (Fla.3d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1011, 93 S.Ct. 437, 34 L.Ed.2d 305 (1972). [*1252] Similarly, appellant’s argument that the trial court has jurisdiction because it is in the best interest for the child under Section 61.1308(l)(b), must fail for lack of proof that it is in fact in Eugen…
• Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1979)
  …not apply in the context of interlocking confessions and that, even if it does, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Mack v. Maggio, 538 F. 2d 1129, 1130 (CA5 1976); United States v. Spinks, 470 F. 2d 64, 65-66 (CA7), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1011 (1972). Two other Courts of Appeals have rejected the Bruton claims of confessing defendants, refusing to concern themselves “with the legal nicety as to whether the . . . case is 'without’ the Bruton rule, or is 'within’ Bruton [and] the violatio…
• United States v. DiGILIO, 538 F.2d 972 (3d Cir. 1976)
  …e same conclusion and explains Catanzaro as a harmless error case. The only direct appeal which has been called to our attention involving the type of Bruton violation committed here is United States v. Spinks, 470 F. 2d 64 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1011, 93 S.Ct. 456, 34 L.Ed.2d 305 (1972). It, too, rejects a Bruton challenge not on the ground that there was no violation, but because any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See also United States ex rel. Stanbridge v. Zelker, 514 F. 2d 45…