UNITED STATES

v.

LOVASCO

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1977)
  …rt [respondent’s] claim that he did not know that the guns were stolen from the United States [*788] mails.” Ibid. The court therefore affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the three possession counts by a divided vote.6 We granted certiorari, 429 U. S. 884, and now reverse.7 II In United States v. Marion, 404 U. S. 307 (1971), this Court considered the significance, for constitutional purposes, of a lengthy preindictment delay. We held that as far as the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment is…
• United States v. Mays, 549 F.2d 670 (9th Cir. 1977)
  …h Circuit has established its own standard which considers 1) the unreasonableness of the delay and 2) the prejudice to the defendant’s ability to defend against the charges. United States v. Lovasco, 532 F. 2d 59, 61 (8th Cir. 1976), cert, granted, 429 U.S. 884, 97 S.Ct. 233, 50 L.Ed.2d 164 (1976). (But see dissents of J. Henley in both Lovasco, supra, and Barket, infra, stating that the Marion test requires both substantial prejudice and intentional delay on the part of the government.) It should be note…
• United States v. Haimowitz, 725 F.2d 1561 (11th Cir. 1984)
  …its case-in-chief. The district court did not require a waiver of the entrapment defense, but merely employed a procedural vehicle to ensure the orderly presentation of evidence. Cf. United States v. Ramirez, 533 F. 2d 138 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 884, 97 S.Ct. 235, 50 L.Ed.2d 165 (1976) (the trial court’s limitation of cross-examination was clearly within its discretion); Rule 611(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Thus, there was no prejudicial error. Haimowitz’s fourth contention on appeal…