CROSS

v.

CITY OF TULSA

Citator

Cited By (23 total)

• State v. McGRAW, 474 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
  …her a particular communication constitutes a true threat which has the probable consequence of causing reasonable apprehension in the hearer is a question of fact for the jury. United States v. Carrier, 672 F. 2d 300, 304-06 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1139, 102 S.Ct. 2972, 73 L.Ed.2d 1359 (1982); United States v. Wilson, 565 F.Supp. 1416, 1431 (S.D.N.Y.1983); see also State v. Abu-Isba, 235 Kan. 851, 685 P. 2d 856 (1984); State v. Martin, 485 A. 2d 244 (Me.1984). There was substantial, competent evide…
• United States v. Andrus, 775 F.2d 825 (7th Cir. 1985)
  …ial court has discretion as to whether to grant motions to sever. Appel-knts bear a heavy burden of showing that they have been prejudiced by the joinder and thereby denied a fair trial. United States v. West, 670 F. 2d 675 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1139, 102 S.Ct. 2972, 73 L.Ed.2d 1359 (1982). Tom asserts that the trial court should have granted the severance on two grounds. First, he repeats that multiple conspiracies were proved and that trial of the defendants together confused the jury, since…
• United States v. Covelli, 738 F.2d 847 (7th Cir. 1984)
  …in making certain evidentiary rulings. In reviewing these contentions, we keep in mind “that the district court has broad discretion to assess the relevancy of proffered evidence.” United States v. West, 670 F. 2d 675, 682 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1139, 102 S.Ct. 2944, 2972, 73 L.Ed.2d 1340, (1982). Most, if not all, of Covelli’s contentions in this regard go to questions of admissibility under FRE 403 10 and FRE 404(b).11 We give great deference to the evidentiary rulings of the district court…