MURRAY

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827 (11th Cir. 1984)
  …of punishment.” Although a noncapital defendant does not have a constitutional right to call and cross-examine witnesses to rebut information contained in the presentence report, United States v. Ashley, 555 F. 2d 462, 466 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 869, 98 S.Ct. 210, 54 L.Ed.2d 147 (1977), Rule 32(c)(3)(A) gives him the right to comment on the report and correct any alleged factual inaccuracies contained in it. The right to rebut information contained in a presentence report also has been expressl…
• United States v. Sutherland, 656 F.2d 1181 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …ructions requested, each of which required a verdict of acquittal merely because of the government’s proof of multiple conspiracies in variance with the indictment. See, e. g., United States v. Ashley, 555 F. 2d 462, 467-68 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 869, 98 S.Ct. 210, 54 L.Ed.2d 147 (1977). In the second place, Sutherland and Maynard each argue that the court erroneously omitted an oral charge stating each overt act alleged in the indictment. Rather than listing each of the many specific instances…
• United States v. Gold, 743 F.2d 800 (11th Cir. 1984)
  …vide the jury with a typewritten outline of its final argument.” Because the decision to admit or to exclude evidence is a matter for the sound discretion of the trial judge, United States v. Ashley, 555 F. 2d 462, 465 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 869, 98 S.Ct. 210, 54 L.Ed.2d 147 (1980), a ruling by the trial court in favor of admitting relevant evidence cannot be disturbed on appeal unless it is determined that there has either been an abuse of discretion or that the lower court’s decision was…