CROW DOG

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Jackson, 549 F.2d 517 (8th Cir. 1977)
  …g with regard to the sensitive issues of exposure to pretrial publicity and racial prejudice. See Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46 (1973); United States v. Crow Dog, 532 F. 2d 1182, 1198 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 2620, 49 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976); United States v. Bear Runner, 502 F. 2d 908 (8th Cir. 1974). A review of the record shows that the trial court’s voir dire examination combined careful attention to the identification of possible prejudice wi…
• United States v. Cooper, 577 F.2d 1079 (6th Cir. 1978)
  …rgument that he was singled out for prosecution while the other participants, those persons who had actually made the nominee loans, escaped. As noted by the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Crow Dog, 532 F. 2d 1182, 1195 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 2620, 49 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976), this issue is essentially an equal protection question: It is well established that a reasonable prosecutorial discretion is inherent in our judicial system, . . . and that such discretion does not amoimt to u…
• Smith v. Mabry, 564 F.2d 249 (8th Cir. 1977)
  …teen-month delay; no denial of speedy trial); United States v. Smith, 552 F. 2d 257, 262 (8th Cir. 1977) (twenty-one month delay; no denial of speedy trial); United States v. Crow Dog, 532 F. 2d 1182, 1192-94 (8th Cir.), application for stay denied, 426 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 2620, 49 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976) (twenty-two-month delay; no denial of speedy trial). The ten-month delay in this case is, however, long enough to require consideration of the other relevant factors.4 The reason for the delay. The District Cou…