EKLUND

v.

UNITED STATES; AND MARTIN V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (27 total)

• Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1985)
  …have reached differing conclusions on whether state-court voluntariness determinations are entitled to the § 2254(d) presumption of correctness, and because of the issue’s importance to the administration of criminal justice, we granted certiorari. 471 U. S. 1003 (1985). Compare Brantley v. McKaskle, 122 F. 2d 187, 188 (CA5 1984) “([V]oluntariness of a confession is a mixed question of law and fact”), with Alexander v. Smith, 582 F. 2d 212, 217 (CA2) (state-court voluntariness determination entitled to § 2…
• United States v. Matra, 841 F.2d 837 (8th Cir. 1988)
  …ant. .While Matra urges this Court to apply the "rule of lenity” to this statute, that rule is to be applied only when there is uncertainty about the statute’s meaning. See United States v. Eklund, 733 F. 2d 1287, 1297 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1003, 105 S.Ct. 1864, 85 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985).…
• New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1986)
  …he papers away himself and no intrusion would have occurred. In the absence of any justification for the search besides the traffic infractions, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the gun must be excluded from evidence. We granted certiorari, 471 U. S. 1003 (1985), and now reverse. II Respondent asserts that this Court is without jurisdiction to hear this case because the decision of the New York Court of Appeals rests on an adequate and independent state ground. We disagree. The opinion of the New…