PFEIFER

v.

BELL & HOWELL CO.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Medina-Arellano, 569 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …trial court at the time the request is denied”. United States v. Uptain, 5 Cir. 1976, 531 F. 2d 1281, 1285-86. See Ungar v. Sarafite, 1964, 376 U.S. 575, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921; McKinney v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1974, 488 F. 2d 28, cert. denied, 416 U.S. 973, 94 S.Ct. 1998, 40 L.Ed.2d 562. This rule obtains because the denial of the continuance often prevents the appellate court from knowing what facts would have come to light at trial had the continuance been granted. For example, when a continuance to…
• Wilkerson v. Turner, 693 F.2d 121 (11th Cir. 1982)
  …denial of a motion for continuance to obtain witnesses will violate an accused’s right to compulsory process, see Dickerson v. State of Alabama, 667 F. 2d 1364, 1370-71 (11th Cir.1982); McKinney v. Wainwright, 488 F. 2d 28, (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 973, 94 S.Ct. 1998, 40 L.Ed.2d 562 (1974), and not every exclusion of hearsay testimony will violate an accused’s right to due process, see Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302-03, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1049-50, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1972), when there is a con…