BURNETTE

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Bufalino, 576 F.2d 446 (2d Cir. 1978)
  …2d at 1328, and calling for a new trial where deliberately suppressed Jencks Act material subsequently surfaces and proves to be “merely material or favorable to the defense.” United States v. Hilton, 521 F. 2d 164, 166 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 939, 96 S.Ct. 1674, 48 L.Ed.2d 181 (1976). In educating personnel concerning their responsibilities in this area, government agencies must keep in mind the broad definition of discoverable “statements” incorporated in the governing [*450] texts.4 We e…
• United States v. James, 609 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1979)
  …re is not “a significant chance that this added item, developed by skilled counsel, could have induced a reasonable doubt in the minds of enough jurors to avoid a conviction.” United States v. Hilton, 521 F. 2d 164, 166 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 939, 96 S.Ct. 1674, 48 L.Ed.2d 181 (1976).16 The same conclusion applies to use of the transcript to demonstrate that Wilder had not promised Starns that he would not be indicted.17 Although such an inference might be drawn from the transcript, Wilder’s…
• United States v. Tompkins, 623 F.2d 824 (2d Cir. 1980)
  …nt on so crucial a question of fact as the intent to waive counsel, no other disposition is possible. See, e. g., United States v. Moten, 582 F. 2d 654, 667 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Hilton, 521 F. 2d 164, 167-68 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 939, 96 S.Ct. 1674, 48 L.Ed.2d 181 (1976).5 Moreover, we emphasize that the purpose of our remand is not to obtain a clearer articulation of the district court’s ruling on the voluntariness or intelligence of Tompkins’s actions, but to order an evidenti…

  ← 1 / 2 →