GIBSON

v.

UNITED STATES; HASTING V. UNITED STATES; WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES; ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES; AND STEWART V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Darrel Paterson Simpson, 813 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1987)
  …ormant to participate in the very criminal enterprise that is under investigation. See, e.g., United States v. O’Connor, 737 F. 2d 814, 817-18 (9th Cir.1984) (use of informant to sell cocaine provided by government was not outrageous), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218, 105 S.Ct. 1198, 84 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985); see also United States v. Bowling, 666 F. 2d 1052, 1054-55 (6th Cir.1981) (informant’s participation in nonviolent property crimes held not to be outrageous), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 960, 102 S.Ct. 1475, 71 L.E…
• United States v. Mathews, 803 F.2d 325 (7th Cir. 1986)
  …estioning to produce, in light of the factual situation involved in the particular trial, some basis for a reasonably knowledgeable exercise of the right of challenge.’ ” United States v. Hastings, 739 F. 2d 1269, 1273 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218, 105 S.Ct. 1199, 84 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985) (citations omitted). We may only reverse a trial judge’s decision on exclusion of veniremen for cause if it is a “clear case” of prejudicial error. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d…
• Gauntlett v. Kelley, 849 F.2d 213 (6th Cir. 1988)
  …entences are imposed by different sentencers, the presumption does not apply because there has been no real “increase” in the sentence. Id. at 140, 106 S.Ct. at 980. See also United States v. Lippert, 740 F. 2d 457, 460 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218, 105 S.Ct. 1200, 84 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985) (“[W]here a different judge or a different jury impose a harsher sentence after an earlier convic [*218] tion has been set aside, the possibility of vindictiveness is remote.”). We conclude that the Pearce pre…