WEINER ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES; AND LICHTIG V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (79 total)

• United States v. Fleishman, 684 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1982)
  …e sufficient indicia of reliability to permit the introduction of the hearsay declarations in spite of the lack of opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine the declar-ant.” United States v. Weiner, 578 F. 2d 757, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 981, 99 S.Ct. 568, 58 L.Ed.2d 651 (1978), reh. denied, 439 U.S. 1135, 99 S.Ct. 1060, 59 L.Ed.2d 98 (1979). The court continued: “The relevant factual inquiry is whether, under the circumstances, the unavailability of the declarant for cross-examination…
• United States v. Phyliss Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476 (7th Cir. 1990)
  …cuits that have addressed this issue demonstrate that appellants’ reliance on Leslie is ill-advised due to the fact that its reasoning and holding have largely been abandoned. In United States v. Pierorazio, 578 F. 2d 48, 51 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 981, 99 S.Ct. 568, 58 L.Ed.2d 652 (1978), the Third Circuit rejected the reasoning in Leslie, stating that: “Section 843(b) makes criminal the use of a telephone ‘in committing, or in causing or facilitating the commission of any act or acts constituti…
• United States v. Kenny, 645 F.2d 1323 (9th Cir. 1981)
  …ttorney to proceed as he wished. In each area complained of, the standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Rogers v. United States, 609 F. 2d 1315, 1318 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. Weiner, 578 F. 2d 757, 766 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 981, 99 S.Ct. 568, 58 L.Ed.2d 651 (1979); United States v. Trapnell, 512 F. 2d 10, 12 (9th Cir. 1975). To the extent there may even have been any error in the District Court’s rulings, the record reflects no abuse of discretion. Similarly, we find no e…