BASKES

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (U.S. 1982)
  …or rule is not a run-of-the-mill remedy. The intention of the rule is to serve the ends of justice; therefore it is invoked ‘only in exceptional circumstances [where necessary] to avoid a miscarriage of justice’ ” (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 450 U. S. 920 (1981); United States v. DiBenedetto, 542 F. 2d 490, 494 [*164] (CA8 1976) (“This court, along with courts in general, have applied the plain error rule sparingly and only in situations where it is necessary to do so to prevent a great miscarriage o…
• United States v. Kopituk, 690 F.2d 1289 (11th Cir. 1982)
  …is not even part of the record on appeal. Morales and Kopituk bore the responsibility to include in the record on appeal all material upon which they intended to rely. United States v. Gerald, 624 F. 2d 1291, 1296 n.1 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 920, 101 S.Ct. 1369, 67 L.Ed.2d 348 (1981). This would necessarily include all orders of court which they contend are in error. The forfeiture judgment entered in this cause was separate and distinct from the Judgment & Commitment Orders, arising as it…
• United States v. Jamiel Alexander Chagra, 669 F.2d 241 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …etermining how best to conduct the voir dire.” Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188, 101 S.Ct. 1629, 1634, 68 L.Ed.2d 22 (1981) (plurality opinion). See also United States v. Gerald, 624 F. 2d 1291, 1296 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 920, 101 S.Ct. 1369, 67 L.Ed.2d 348 (1981). Therefore, the district court’s decision to employ a particular procedure will not be lightly overturned. United States v. Hawkins, supra, 658 F. 2d at 283 (citation omitted). Appellant has not identified an…