GLOVER

v.

MCKASKLE, ACTING DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Mealy, 851 F.2d 890 (7th Cir. 1988)
  …into evidence. Nevertheless, we do not believe that the plea agreements [*900] in this case disproportionately emphasized or repeated the promise of truthful testimony. See United States v. Henderson, 717 F. 2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1009, 104 S.Ct. 1006, 79 L.Ed.2d 238 (1984); Halbert, 640 F. 2d at 1005. In any case, the judge’s instruction9 to the jury that they should use caution in evaluating the government witnesses’ testimony was sufficient to dispel any harmful effects of the…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Amel F. Lueth, 807 F.2d 719 (8th Cir. 1986)
  …ted before the jury retired to consider its verdict. We have noted the relevance of cautionary and limiting instructions in assessing the possible prejudice from misjoinder. United States v. Givens, 712 F. 2d 1298, 1301 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1009, 104 S.Ct. 1005, 79 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984). More importantly, however, evidence of Lueth’s expenditures would have been admissible under Count I of the indictment, charging Lueth with engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, regardless of whether t…
• United States v. Hernandez, 780 F.2d 113 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
  …t limiting instructions actually function to enable juries to compartmentalize evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Bruner, 657 F. 2d 1278, 1291 (D.C.Cir.1981). See also United States v. Givens, 712 F. 2d 1298, 1300-01 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1009, 104 S.Ct. 1005, 79 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984). This is true even when there is a risk that a jury will improperly use evidence of an incident in which the co-defendant was clearly involved but as to which the defendant seeking severance was only peripheral…