GRANT

v.

WASHINGTON

Citator

Cited By (32 total)

• State v. Tsavaris, 382 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
  …cording of the conversation is not. Pennington v. State, 19 Md.App. 253, 310 A. 2d 817 (Ct.Spec.App.1973), cert, denied, 419 U.S. 1019, 95 S.Ct. 492, 42 L.Ed.2d 292 (1974); State v. Grant, 9 Wash.App. 260, 511 P. 2d 1013 (Ct.App.1973), cert, denied, 419 U.S. 849, 95 S.Ct. 87, 42 L.Ed.2d 78 (1974); State v. Smith, 72 Wis.2d 711, 242 N.W. 2d 184 (1976). At least one court, however, has ruled to the contrary, peremptorily dismissing as “novel” the argument that testimony regarding an intercepted telephone conv…
• Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1981)
  …A8 1978) ; United States v. Williams, 612 F. 2d 735, 736-737 (CA3 1979), cert. denied, 445 U. S. 934. Cf. Kuzniak v. Taylor Supply Co., 471 F. 2d 702, 703 (CA6 1972); United States v. Grant, 494 F. 2d 120, 122-123, and n. 6 (CA2 1974), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 849; United States v. Bear Runner, 502 F. 2d 908, 911-913 (CA8 1974). See United States v. Booker, supra. Nothing in Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U. S. 589, is inconsistent with this interpretation of Aldridge. Ristaino defined the circumstances under which…
• United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121 (2d Cir. 1979)
  …is as it should be — the “due administration of justice” can allow no less. Just as in cases dealing with the scope of voir dire as it relates to “for cause” challenges, see, e. g., United States v. Grant, 494 F. 2d 120, 123 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 849, 95 S.Ct. 87, 42 L.Ed.2d 79 (1974), it must be acknowledged that the trial court has a great deal of discretion, in these matters, but it is a discretion “subject to the essential demands of fairness,” Aldridge v. United States, supra, 283 U.S. at 3…