WRIGHT

v.

ESTELLE, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• United States v. Laurence M. Anderson, 654 F.2d 1264 (8th Cir. 1981)
  …LSD among the coconspirators, which demonstrated their interaction and cooperation. It is clear that each offense required proof of at least one fact which the other did not. See United States v. Taylor, 603 F. 2d 732, 734 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 982, 100 S.Ct. 487, 62 L.Ed.2d 487 (1979). Counts I and III charged two separate crimes, and the penalty provisions of each allow separate and distinct sentences. II. Volk Volk raises only one issue which is cognizable on appeal. He contends that ther…
• United States v. Purham, 725 F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1984)
  …he government. Where actual prejudice is established, the reasons for the delay are balanced against the prejudice shown by the accused.” United States v. Taylor, 603 F. 2d 732, 735 (8th Cir.) (citations omitted; emphasis in original), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 982, 100 S.Ct. 487, 62 L.Ed.2d 410 (1979). Assuming for the purposes of argument that the delay of more than a year between the date of the crime and the filing of the federal indictment was unreasonable,2 a careful review of the record convinces us th…
• United States v. Flemino, 691 F.2d 1263 (8th Cir. 1982)
  …he crimes alleged in the indictment. In a similar case this court held that where the testimony had been stricken and the court had admonished the jury, reversal was not required. United States v. Taylor, 603 F. 2d 732, 735 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 982, 100 S.Ct. 487, 62 L.Ed.2d 410 (1979). Generally, the district court has the discretion to decide whether the trial was tainted and to declare a mistrial. United States v. Maestas, 554 F. 2d 834, 839 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 431 U.S. 972, 97 S.Ct. 2…