SNEIDERS

v.

HENRY

Citator

Cited By (84 total)

• United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …ly proved does not expose the defendant to the possibility of a second prosecution for the same offense or prevent the preparation of an adequate defense by causing undue surprise. United States v. Somers, 496 F. 2d 723, 745 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 832, 95 S.Ct. 56, 42 L.Ed.2d 58 (1974). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the failure of the Government to prove the exact date of Fisher’s departure from Fort Lauderdale neither exposed Fisher to the possibility of a second prose…
• United States v. Kopituk, 690 F.2d 1289 (11th Cir. 1982)
  …States v. Adams, 581 F. 2d 193, 197 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. Bernstein, 533 F. 2d 775, 789 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 998, 97 S.Ct. 523, 50 L.Ed.2d 608 (1976); United States v. Somers, 496 F. 2d 723, 729-730 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 832, 95 S.Ct. 56, 42 L.Ed.2d [*1314] 58 (1974); 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 144 (1969).22 In other words, the fact that the substantive offenses emanated from a single, central conspiracy is a sufficient indication that substantial ide…
• United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1985)
  …ing such a determination, we usually focus upon two issues: (1) potential for a double jeopardy problem and (2) unfair surprise to appellants that adversely affected their defense. United States v. Somers, 496 F. 2d 723, 746 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 832, 95 S.Ct. 56, 42 L.Ed.2d 58 (1974). Neither appellant raises a substantial argument that a double jeopardy problem exists. Nor does either appellant allege that his defense was prejudiced. Knowledge that the marijuana evidence would be introduced at…

  ← 1 / 2 →