JOHNSON

v.

UNITED STATES; BURGIN V. UNITED STATES; AND BRIDGEMAN V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (40 total)

• Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986)
  …me group, has long been accepted as a legitimate basis for the State’s exercise of peremptory challenges. See Swain, supra; United States v. Leslie, 783 F. 2d 541 (CA5 1986) (en banc); United States v. Carter, 528 F. 2d 844 (CA8 1975), cert. denied, 425 U. S. 961 (1976). Indeed, given the need for reasonable [*139] limitations on the time devoted to voir dire, the use of such “proxies” by both the State and the defendant2 may be extremely useful in eliminating from the jury persons who might be biased in one…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Jackson, 549 F.2d 517 (8th Cir. 1977)
  …rom the jury panel was part of a systematic practice by the Government to strike blacks from juries in the Western District of Missouri. An identical contention was raised in United States v. Carter, 528 F. 2d 844, 848 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 961, 96 S.Ct. 1745, 48 L.Ed.2d 206 (1976), concerning the Government’s use of jury strikes in the Western District of Missouri in 1974. The court in Carter found that the defendant had failed to establish that the Government’s use of jury strikes in the…
• United States v. Alvarez, 625 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir. 1980)
  …band because prior planning and concerted action would be required to load the marijuana in Colombia, fly it into this country, and unload it upon its arrival. See United States v. Bridgeman, 523 F. 2d 1099, 1111 & n.5 (D.C.Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 961, 96 S.Ct. 1743, 48 L.Ed.2d 206 (1976). Alvarez’ joinder in the illicit compact is inferable on two fronts. First, there is direct evidence that Alvarez intended to be at the off-loading site. A jury may well conclude that his intended presence manif…