TAYLOR

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (19 total)

• United States v. Gary L. "Scott" Dickey, 736 F.2d 571 (10th Cir. 1984)
  …is. THE COURT: Objection sustained. R. , Vol. XXIV at 49-50. We have often held that the trial court has broad discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination. See, e.g., United States v. Haro, 573 F. 2d 661, 667 (10th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 851, 99 S.Ct. 156, 58 L.Ed.2d 155 (1978); Foster v. United States, 282 F. 2d 222, 224 (10th Cir.1960). It is clear from the record that counsel for Adams had ample opportunity to impeach Ruth Bragg through recall or cross-examination of her. It was impr…
• United States v. Pardo, 636 F.2d 535 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
  …nstitutional right to cross-examine a Government witness because that witness has invoked the Fifth Amendment on cross-examination or because [*547] impeachment was deemed adequate. See United States v. Haro, 573 F. 2d 661 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 851, 99 S.Ct. 156, 58 L.Ed.2d 155 (1978); United States v. Nogueira, 585 F. 2d 23 (1st Cir. 1978). In Haro, the witness was permitted to testify on direct that he observed the burglary, and invoke the Fifth Amendment on cross-examination by the defense…
• United States v. Burnette, 698 F.2d 1038 (9th Cir. 1983)
  …2253. In evaluating this corrupting effect, we give consideration to “the conduct on the part of the government agents tending to focus the witness’ attention on the defendant.” United States v. Crawford, 576 F. 2d 794, 797 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 851, 99 S.Ct. 157, 58 L.Ed.2d 155 (1978) (footnote omitted).12 Applying the above analysis to the present case, we conclude that the identifi [*1046] cation testimony of Larry Hill was sufficiently reliable to warrant its admission at trial. Although H…

  ← 1 / 2 →