CAMPBELL

v.

DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSN.

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• United States v. Bustillo, 789 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1986)
  …miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity and reputation of the judicial process. Id. “An [*1368] improper instruction rarely justifies a finding of plain error.” United States v. Glickman, 604 F. 2d 625, 632 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1080, 100 S.Ct. 1032, 62 L.Ed.2d 764 (1980). The trial judge instructed the jurors that they must find Bustillo guilty if they were “firmly convinced” of his guilt. Bustillo argues that this instruction was defective in that it reduced the Government’s…
• United States v. Payseno, 782 F.2d 832 (9th Cir. 1986)
  …v. Essex, 734 F. 2d 832, 843-44 (D.C. Cir.1984); United States v. Pazsint, 703 F. 2d 420, 424 (9th Cir.1983). An improper instruction rarely justifies a plain error finding. United States v. Glickman, 604 F. 2d 625, 632 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1080, 100 S.Ct. 1032, 62 L.Ed.2d 764 (1980); see Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154, 97 S.Ct. 1730, 1736, 52 L.Ed.2d 203 (1977). Moreover, plain error is highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights. United States v. Kennedy, 726 F. 2d 546, 5…
• United States v. Sanford, 673 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir. 1982)
  …8). In addition, this Circuit has held that in order to establish consent it is ordinarily enough to show that a party engaged in a conversation knowing it was being taped. United States v. Glickman, 604 F. 2d 625, 634 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1080, 100 S.Ct. 1032, 62 L.Ed.2d 764 (1980). Testimony at trial and at the suppression hearing,thus, both support the lower court’s finding of consent which is not clearly erroneous. III. IMPROPER TEMPORARY ADMISSION OF PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE The second…