LENZE

v.

UNITED STATES; AND BUSBY V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566 (1st Cir. 1981)
  …cutor somewhat greater leeway in rebuttal. See United States v. Medina, 455 F. 2d 209, 210 (1st Cir. 1971) (criticism of Government witnesses may invite zealous rejoinder); cf. United States v. White, 486 F. 2d 204, 206 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 980, 94 S.Ct. 1569, 39 L.Ed.2d 876 (1974) (dictum) (intemperate remarks at end of long and hotly contested trial are harmless error). We do not hold, however, that the prosecutor has free rein once defense counsel makes inflammatory remarks or even th…
• United States v. Gaetano Modica, 663 F.2d 1173 (2d Cir. 1981)
  …tion results in a denial of due process when the improper statements cause substantial prejudice to the defendant. See, e. g., United States v. Bivona, supra, 487 F. 2d at 444; United States v. White, 486 F. 2d 204, 205 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 980, 94 S.Ct. 1569, 39 L.Ed.2d 876 (1974); cf. United States v. Morris, supra, 568 F. 2d at 402. Often, the existence of substantial prejudice turns upon the strength of the government’s case: if proof of guilt is strong, then the prejudicial effect of…
• United States v. DiMURO, 540 F.2d 503 (10th Cir. 1976)
  …FBI and other law enforcement agencies. . Appellants seem to contend that it was improper for the government to seek a second indictment. This claim, however, lacks merit. De Marrias v. United States, 487 F. 2d 19, 21 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 980, 94 S.Ct. 1570, 39 L.Ed.2d 877 (1974). . Other of the appellants who were not named in the original indictment claim that the government deprived them of due process of_y law under the fifth amendment by waiting until August 22, 1974, to indict the…