CALIFORNIA

v.

LANPHEAR

Citator

Cited By

• Brooks v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir. 1985)
  …e claim in this case, the lack of an objection is a factor to be considered in examining the impact of a prosecutor’s closing argument. United States ex rel. Smith v. Rowe, 618 F. 2d 1204, 1211 n. 3 (7th Cir.1980), vacated sub nom, Franzen v. Smith, 449 U.S. 810, 101 S.Ct. 57, 66 L.Ed.2d 13 (1980), reinstated, United States ex rel. Smith v. Franzen, 660 F. 2d 237 (7th Cir.1981); cf. United States v. Young, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (on direct review of federal conviction, failure to objec…
• Cramer v. Fahner, 683 F.2d 1376 (7th Cir. 1982)
  …ly sufficient” is “not exceedingly strong,” there may be “a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction.” United States ex rel. Smith v. Rowe, 618 F. 2d 1204, 1213 (7th Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 449 U.S. 810, 101 S.Ct. 57, 66 L.Ed.2d 13 (1980). However, where, as here, the evidence of guilt is so strong that, even without the admission of the disputed evidence, the state proved its case against the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt, the writ should…
• United States v. Ramos, 932 F.2d 611 (7th Cir. 1991)
  …ndard that we use in analyzing alleged comment on a defendant’s failure to testify at trial. United States ex rel. Smith v. Rowe, 618 F. 2d 1204, 1210 (7th Cir.) (per curiam), judgment vacated and remanded on other grounds sub nom. Franzen v. Smith, 449 U.S. 810, 101 S.Ct. 57, 66 L.Ed.2d 13 (1980); see also United States v. Ashford, 924 F. 2d 1416, 1425 (7th Cir.1991). Under this standard, we must determine whether: (1) “it was the prosecutor’s manifest intention to refer to the defendant’s silence”; or (2)…