GLASSEL

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (39 total)

• United States v. Rios, 611 F.2d 1335 (10th Cir. 1979)
  …973, 977 (10th Cir.). Likewise, the determination of the scope of cross-examination is within the trial court’s discretion. United States v. Coppola, 526 F. 2d 764, 777 (10th Cir.); United States v. Gant, 487 F. 2d 30, 35 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 941, 94 S.Ct. 1946, 40 L.Ed.2d 293. Most of appellant’s alleged evidentiary errors (i. e., #’s 3-6) may be disposed of by reference to these rules. Appellant’s claim of improper hearsay evidence (# 1) is governed by Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(B). Under this…
• United States v. Bohr, 581 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1978)
  …ecifically asked by the district court if there were any objections, Bohr’s attorney indicated that he had none. Our task on review under the plain error rule is limited.7 See United States v. Scott, 485 F. 2d 576, 577 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 941, 94 S.Ct. 1946, 40 L.Ed.2d 292 (1974). Two factors weigh heavily in our determination that the admission of the photograph of Bohr did not constitute plain error. Initially we note that the government’s first use of the photograph came during redir…
• United States v. Troutman, 814 F.2d 1428 (10th Cir. 1987)
  …and jury minutes before trial.15 He recognizes the Government is not obligated to furnish transcripts of the grand jury proceedings before the various witnesses have testified on direct, United States v. Gant, 487 F. 2d 30 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 941, 94 S.Ct. 1946, 40 L.Ed.2d 293 (1973), and will be ordered to do so only in rare “cases of particularized need where the secrecy of the [grand jury] proceedings is lifted discretely and limitedly.” United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677…

  ← 1 / 2 →