COVEN

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Pelusio, 725 F.2d 161 (2d Cir. 1983)
  …to do with the gun, had that been the fact. It was permissible, therefore, for the prosecutor to comment in summation on the defendants’ failure to call David as a defense witness. United States v. Coven, 662 F. 2d 162, 171 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 916, 102 S.Ct. 1771, 72 L.Ed.2d 176 (1981); United States v. Sindona, 636 F. 2d 792, 806 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 1984, 68 L.Ed.2d 302 (1981); United States v. Barnes, 604 F. 2d 121, 148 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S.…
• United States v. Heimann, 705 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1983)
  …743 (1979) (emphasis added); see United States v. Brozyna, supra, and an advocate’s arguments to a jury surely do not qualify as “evidence”. Moreover, when read in context, see United States v. Coven, 662 F. 2d 162, 172 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 916, 102 S.Ct. 1771, 72 L.Ed.2d 176 (1982), the prosecutorial comments that Heimann points to as particularly strong indicators of the “variance” do not reflect any intention on the part of the government to narrow the fraud charged in the indictment. A…
• United States v. Garrudo, 869 F. Supp. 1574 (S.D. Fla. 1994)