VERDUGO

v.

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• State v. Lewis, 518 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
  …d.2d at 904-05. 412 So. 2d at 871. Nor was the confrontation turned from a stop to an arrest by the fact that Miranda warnings were given. See Poole, 718 F. 2d at 673. See generally United States v. Lewis, 556 F. 2d 446 (6th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 863, 98 S.Ct. 193, 54 L.Ed.2d 137 (1977). The law is to the contrary. There seems to be no dispute but that Lewis’s observed connection with the narcotics deal — including the first appearance of the cocaine only after he arrived and his apparent inter…
• United States v. Ruppel, 666 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …e the Government may not use the [*268] grand jury in place of discovery for the purpose of preparing a pending indictment for trial, it may continue with an investigation. E.g., United States v. Beasley, 550 F. 2d 261, 266 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 863, 938, 98 S.Ct. 195, 427, 54 L.Ed.2d 138, 297 (1977); Beverly v. United States, 468 F. 2d 732, 743 (5th Cir. 1972). Ruppel contends that the Government’s interrogation of Holland before the grand jury was not in furtherance of the Government’s ongoin…
• United States v. Lanier, 578 F.2d 1246 (8th Cir. 1978)
  …submitted Counts I and II, we conclude that the verdict itself would indicate that the jury did give independent consideration to each count, and therefore find no prejudice. See Chatman v. United States, 557 F. 2d 147, 149 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 863, 98 S.Ct. 195, 54 L.Ed.2d 138 (1977). B. Restricted Cross-examination. The defendant raises several evidentiary issues. First, he alleges that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of the government’s initial witness, Ewing B.…