BOYD

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632 (11th Cir. 1984)
  …lure to hold a James hearing was not error and that the court was not required to find that a James hearing would be impractical before deciding to forego it. Id. at 963. In United States v. Marquardt, 695 F. 2d 1300, 1304 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1093, 103 S.Ct. 1793, 76 L.Ed.2d 360 (1983), we explained that a James hearing is a prophylactic measure to ensure that the jury does not hear inadmissible evidence but that [njothing in the James case suggests that the trial court’s failure to hold a J…
• United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1984)
  …he circumstances presented, particularly the reasons for continuance presented to the trial court at the time the request is denied. Id. at 1285-86 (citations omitted); see United States v. Marquardt, 695 F. 2d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1093, 103 S.Ct. 1793, 76 L.Ed.2d 360 (1983); United States v. Jimenez-Diaz, 659 F. 2d 562, 567 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 907, 102 S.Ct. 1754, 72 L.Ed.2d 164 (1982). The reasons for a continuance asserted below generally relate to th…
• Passman v. Blackburn, 797 F.2d 1335 (5th Cir. 1986)
  …ed.” Id. . The state contends in passing that the lapse of time between the conviction and this appeal should bar consideration of the petition, citing to the Chief Justice’s written statement regarding a denial of certiorari in Spalding v. Aiken, 460 U.S. 1093, 103 S.Ct. 1795, 76 L.Ed.2d 361 (1983). Suffice it to say that delay is a matter to be considered under Rule 9(a), not Rule 9(b), and then only on the question of whether the state "has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the petition by…