JOHNSON

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Washington v. State, 419 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
  …e have routinely rejected claims that defense counsel needed to be free to abandon a ‘united front’ strategy. See, e.g., United States v. Medel, 592 F. 2d 1305, 1312 (5th Cir. 1979); Canal Zone v. Hodges, 589 F. 2d 207, 210 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 948, 99 S.Ct. 2173, 60 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1979). The claims of conflict here are based entirely on appellate counsel’s theories — developed with the benefit of the entire record — on what each defendant’s most effective response to the government’s evidenc…
• United States v. Palafox, 764 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1985)
  …l phases of their manufacturing, processing, distribution and use.” 487 F. 2d at 1245; see also United States v. Gomez, 593 F. 2d 210, 213 (3d Cir.) (en banc) (Congress intended to proscribe all drug activity in enacting the Drug Act), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 948, 99 S.Ct. 2172, 60 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1979). Appellant’s position that he could be prosecuted for only one offense and that the government must elect to prosecute either the distribution or the possession with intent to distribute, is contrary to this c…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• United States v. Tejada, 886 F.2d 483 (1st Cir. 1989)
  …t agent, but a single act is proof of the two offenses, it was not the intent of Congress that the defendant be punished twice for the single act.” Id. at 358. See also United States v. Gómez, 593 F. 2d 210, 214-15 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 948, 99 S.Ct. 2172, 60 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1979); United States v. Oropeza, 564 F. 2d 316, 323-24 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1080, 98 S.Ct. 1276, 55 L.Ed.2d 788 (1978); United States v. Atkinson, 512 F. 2d 1235, 1240 (4th Cir.1975). Upon examinin…