WOODCOCK

v.

AMARAL

Citator

Cited By (36 total)

• United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566 (1st Cir. 1981)
  …relevant to determining its materiality. Motive may be argued to the jury. . The trial court suppressed Gunschel’s pretrial identification of Kearns. . Kearns has directed us to Woodcock v. Amaral, 511 F. 2d 985, 989 (1st Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 841, 96 S.Ct. 72, 46 L.Ed.2d 60 (1975), for the proposition that where prosecutorial misconduct is involved, defendant prejudiced by delinquencies in disclosure need make little showing of materiality in order to obtain a new trial. We do remark on the…
• Prado McGEE, Jr. v. W.J. Estelle, Jr., 722 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1984)
  …nd Ninth Circuits are unclear. The Second Circuit has stated, “We do not consider that the statutory requirement of exhaustion can be waived by the State.” United States ex rel. Sostre v. Festa, 513 F. 2d 1313, 1314 n. 1 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 841, 96 S.Ct. 72, 46 L.Ed.2d 60 (1975). But in Colon v. Fogg, 603 F. 2d 403, 407 (2d Cir.1979), the court rejected as “close to frivolous” the state’s attempt to raise the exhaustion issue belatedly and in a context evidencing the futility of pursuit of…
• In re Houtman v. Mann, 568 F.2d 651 (9th Cir. 1978)
  …to federal courts does not automatically preclude the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, 279 U.S. 388, 49 S.Ct. 356, 73 L.Ed. 752 (1928); cf. Clark v. Watchie, 513 F. 2d 994 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 841, 96 S.Ct. 72, 46 L.Ed.2d 60 (1975). However, we believe that collateral estoppel is inappropriate when “a new determination is warranted by factors relating to the allocation of jurisdiction between [the two courts]." Restatement 2d of Judgments § 6…