SMITH

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (23 total)

• United States v. Felino Rodriguez, 882 F.2d 1059 (6th Cir. 1989)
  …t miscarriage of justice, we are unable to review the district court’s denial of a Rule 29 Motion where the defendant did not renew that Motion at the close of all the evidence.” United States v. Faymore, 736 F. 2d 328, 334 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 868, 105 S.Ct. 213, 83 L.Ed.2d 143 (1984) (emphasis in original). See also United States v. Van Dyke, 605 F. 2d 220, 225 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 994, 100 S.Ct. 529, 62 L.Ed.2d 425 (1979); United States v. Denton, 556 F. 2d 811, 817 (6th Cir.)…
• United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc., 871 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1989)
  …y the passage of time.” United States v. Campbell, 706 F. 2d 1138, 1142 (11th Cir.1983). We agree that “[wjhether the delay was reasonable will depend on the facts of each case.” United States v. Dennis, 737 F. 2d 617, 621 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 868, 105 S.Ct. 215, 83 L.Ed.2d 145 (1984). Thus we must also ask whether the factual setting of this case dictates that it is reasonable to delay the trial of one defendant, Mr. Philpot, considering not only judicial economy but also procedural fairness…
• United States v. Hudson, 884 F.2d 1016 (7th Cir. 1989)
  …5) (even if the admission of this testimony otherwise satisfies Rule 702 (which should be determined after an on-the-record detailed proffer), it still can be excluded under Rule 403); United States v. Smith, 736 F. 2d 1103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 868, 105 S.Ct. 213, 83 L.Ed.2d 143 (1984) (although this type of testimony was formally considered inadmissible, it now is appropriate for consideration by the jury; however, exclusion of this testimony in this case was harmless error); but see United S…