POLAND

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Muehleman v. State, 503 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1987)
  …mother, burglary, theft, and possession of drugs— when the defense had waived the mitigating factor of “no significant history of pri- or criminal activity.” § 921.141(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (1985); Maggard v. State, 399 So. 2d 973 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1059, 102 S.Ct. 610, 70 L.Ed.2d 598 (1981). Muehle-man points to Maggard as requiring reversal and a new sentencing hearing. In Maggard, we found reversible error in the state’s presentation of extensive evidence of the defendant’s prior criminal histor…
• United States v. Epifanio Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1989)
  …pon the evidence and may express an opinion on the facts as long: as the judge makes it clear to the jury that all matters of fact are submitted for their determination); see also United States v. Poland, 659 F. 2d 884, 894 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1059, 102 S.Ct. 611, 70 L.Ed.2d 598 (1981). Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the judge’s comments constituted plain error. E. Hearsay Objection Appellant Brijido Astorga-Ayon contends that the district court committed prejudicial error in allo…
• Spencer v. Zant, 715 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1983)
  …Although these cases are directed to whether the Supreme Court may decide a federal claim on direct review of a state court decision, the same principles apply in collateral review. E.g., Breest v. Perrin, 655 F. 2d 1, 2-3 (1st cir.), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1059, 102 S.Ct. 610, 70 L.Ed.2d 597 (1981). Commentators also have consistently noted that state procedural rules that are novel and applied retroactively so as to preclude presentation of federal constitutional claims in state court may not preclude c…

  ← 1 / 3 →