GADOMSKI

v.

COMMON PLEAS COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• United States v. Hooks, 780 F.2d 1526 (10th Cir. 1986)
  …for judgment of acquittal. E.g., Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 16-17, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2149-50, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); United States v. Weed, 689 F. 2d 752, 756 (7th Cir.1982); United States v. Hazeem, 679 F. 2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 848, 103 S.Ct. 106, 74 L.Ed.2d 95 (1982). . "Ladies and gentlemen, if I misstated ... the evidence in the case, I request that you recall it from your collective memory rather than what I say." Record, vol. 3, at 200. . An “evidentiary harpoon” is a m…
• United States v. Marabelles, 724 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir. 1984)
  …as relevant evidence from which the jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. United States v. Hazeem, 679 F. 2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 848, 103 S.Ct. 106, 74 L.Ed.2d 95 (1982). On appeal, our Court applies the same test to review the trial court’s decision. Id. See also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (“the relevant question is whether…
• United States v. Debbe Marquardt, 786 F.2d 771 (7th Cir. 1986)
  …d the bank.” United States v. Acosta, 748 F. 2d 577, 580 (11th Cir.1984). Thus, “[m]isapplication, unlike embezzlement, does not require previous lawful possession of the funds.” United States v. Hazeem, 679 F. 2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 848, 103 S.Ct. 106, 74 L.Ed.2d 95 (1982). In the present case, Marquardt had lawful control of First Savings’ funds only within the limited authority granted her by virtue of her position as head teller at the institution. Embezzlement requires all th…