NOLL

v.

WISCONSIN

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• United States v. LeQUIRE, 943 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991)
  …al prejudice or intentional delay for tactical advantage in this case. A stringent standard is employed when examining the issue of prejudice. Stoner, 751 F. 2d at 1544 (citing Tiemens v. United States, 724 F. 2d 928, 929 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 837, 105 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed.2d 74 (1984)). “The prejudice shown must be such as to impair the fairness of the trial.” United States v. Solomon, 686 F. 2d 863, 872 (11th Cir.1982). In examining LeQuire’s claim and the record itself, we can find no subs…
• The United States v. Hilmer Burdette Sandini, 816 F.2d 869 (3d Cir. 1987)
  …seek a form of enhanced penalty. Notice of that proposed action, however, reflects an aspect of due process unrelated to the necessity of proving each element of the offense. See United States v. Raimondo, 721 F. 2d 476 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 837, 105 S.Ct. 133, 83 L.Ed.2d 74 (1984). In other settings, statutes permitting enhanced penalties have established the prosecution’s burden of proof as a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3575 (increased sentence for dangerous special of…
• United States v. Edilio Diaz, 190 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 1999)
  …e clear reference to API). Some cases have held that the indictment need not describe each item subject to forfeiture if this is done in a bill of particulars. See United States v. Raimondo, 721 F. 2d 476, 477 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied sub nom. 469 U.S. 837, 105 S.Ct. 133, 83 L.Ed.2d 74 (1984); United States v. Grammatikos, 633 F. 2d 1013 (2nd Cir.1980), or its equivalent, see United States v. Amend, 791 F. 2d 1120, 1125 (4th Cir.1986) (“government’s ‘open file’ policy ... gave [defendant] adequate not…