QUIROZ-SANTI

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Graves, 669 F.2d 964 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …termining what jury instructions the trial court will issue. Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(c)(3) (defendant need not be present “[a]t a conference or argument upon a question of law.”); United States v. Gregorio, 497 F. 2d 1253, 1256-60 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024, 95 S.Ct. 501, 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974); United States v. Lewis, 420 F. 2d 686, 687 (5th Cir. 1970) (per curiam); Root v. Cunningham, 344 F. 2d 1, 3-5 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 866, 86 S.Ct. 135, 15 L.Ed.2d 104 (1965); Deschenes v. United Stat…
• United States v. Alessandrello, 637 F.2d 131 (3d Cir. 1980)
  …ar as due process is concerned, the statutory right is at least as far-reaching as the constitutional right.11 Id.; United States v. Brown, 571 F. 2d 980, 986 (6th Cir. 1978); United States v. Gregorio, 497 F. 2d 1253, 1257 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024, 95 S.Ct. 501, 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974). B. Rule 43(a) provides: “The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at the time of the plea, at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the…
• United States v. Villano, 797 F.2d 1547 (10th Cir. 1986)
  …See Rakes v. United States, 309 F. 2d 686, 687 (4th Cir.1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 939, 83 S.Ct. 1543, 10 L.Ed.2d 694 (1963). The history of the presence privilege was traced in United States v. Gregorio, 497 F. 2d 1253 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024, 95 S.Ct. 501, 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974). There a defendant challenged his conviction on the ground that he had been excluded from a jury instruction conference. Id. at 1256-57. In rejecting his assertions based on the Due Process Clause and Rule 43,…