YOUNG ET AL.

v.

WAINWRIGHT, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (24 total)

• United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1980)
  …at required by Murphy. We have examined the record and have conducted an independent review of the circumstances alleged to constitute pretrial publicity in this case. See United States v. D’Andrea, 495 F. 2d 1170, 1172 n.5 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 855, 95 S.Ct. 101, 42 L.Ed.2d 88 (1974). We have concluded, first, that the publicity in this case was not presumptively prejudicial as a mat-' ter of law, in contrast to that involved in cases like Rideau, and, second, that the “substantial prejudice”…
• United States v. Jones, 542 F.2d 186 (4th Cir. 1976)
  …rial that its infraction can never be treated as harmless error.” . United States v. Armocida (3d Cir. 1975), 515 F. 2d 29, 49 (Italics in opinion). To the same effect: United States v. D‘Andrea (3d Cir. 1974), 495 F. 2d 1170, 1172-3, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 855, 95 S.Ct. 101, 42 L.Ed.2d 88 (1974). . The alternate juror was not examined because it was apparent to the trial court she would not sit on the jury. . See United States v. Peterson (4th Cir. 1975), 524 F. 2d 167, 176-7; United States v. Anderson,…
• United States v. Armocida, 515 F.2d 29 (3d Cir. 1975)
  …; and (3) the court feared calling attention to the articles, (thereby emphasizing their content) none of which had appeared in any other newspaper. See Tr. 3771—73; United States v. D’Andrea, 495 [*49] F. 2d 1170, 1173 n. 8 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 855, 95 S.Ct. 101, 42 L.Ed.2d 88 (1974). While we believe that better practice would require the polling of the jury to ascertain if any member had read the newspaper accounts, we cannot say that the district judge abused his discretion under all the c…