GRAY

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (78 total)

• Perez v. State, 474 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
  …e State should not have been permitted to list the defendant’s attorney as a witness, because his testimony was not needed and was available to the State through other witnesses. See United States v. Crockett, 506 F. 2d 759 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 824, 96 S.Ct. 37, 46 L.Ed.2d 40 (1975) (predicate for government calling defense attorney is showing that evidence unobtainable from other sources); Williams v. District Court, El Paso County, — Colo. -, 700 P. 2d 549 (1985) (state must show compelling…
• I. M. v. State, 400 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
  …ht, 551 F. 2d 991 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902, 98 S.Ct. 298, 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977), these cases do not identify the above statutes as authorizing the search. In United States v. Chiarito, 507 F. 2d 1098 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 824, 96 S.Ct. 38, 46 L.Ed.2d 40 (1975), however, the court found that 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 applies to searches of persons entering the United States Customs Inspection area at Miami International Airport on an international flight. Accord, People v. Furey,…
• United States v. Orange Jell Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …ause they are relevant to the issue of intent,7 an issue placed squarely in contention by Beechum’s testimony. See United States v. Pena, 542 F. 2d 292, 294-95 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Gray, 507 F. 2d 1013, 1018-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 824, 96 S.Ct. 38, 46 L.Ed.2d 40 (1975). Moreover, that Beechum did not refer to the cards on direct examination does not render inquiry about them irrelevant and therefore does not preclude the Government’s inquiries about them. B. Repeated Invocation…