WARD

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (53 total)

• California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992 (U.S. 1983)
  …s no requirement that any evidence of future dangerousness be introduced. Indeed, with rare exceptions such evidence is inadmissible under California law. See People v. Murtishaw, 29 Cal. 3d 733, 767-775, 631 P. 2d 446, 468-471 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 922 (1982). Farris v. State, 535 S. W. 2d, at 613-614, quoting Graham v. State, 304 S. W. 2d 622, 624 (1957). Accord, State v. Leland, 190 Ore. 598, 623, 227 P. 2d 785, 796 (1951) (“purely speculative”); Jones v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 273, 279, 72 S. E…
• United States v. Epifanio Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1989)
  …viduals charged with a conspiracy which was found on a vessel containing contraband was not admitted for its truth, but was relevant evidence admitted for the limited purpose of linking the individuals to the vessel and to each other), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S.Ct. 1281, 71 L.Ed.2d 464 (1982); United States v. Lopez, 584 F. 2d 1175, 1179 (2d Cir.1978) (taped conversation between two persons was not admitted for its truth, but was relevant evidence to show that the two individuals knew each other). T…
• United States v. Clark N. Fischel, 686 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …attention.” United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, - U.S. -,-, 102 S.Ct. 3440, 3448, 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982); McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967). . United States v. Hughes, 658 F. 2d 317 (5th Cir. 1981) cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S.Ct. 1280, 71 L.Ed.2d 463 (1982), suggested that a defendant would desire an informant’s address only for two purposes: to flesh out the informer’s background for impeachment purposes and to locate the witness for service of a subpoena. 658 F.…

  ← 1 / 2 →