JANKOWSKI

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (29 total)

• United States v. Thornbrugh, 962 F.2d 1438 (10th Cir. 1992)
  …overturn the convictions unless the prosecutor’s misconduct ‘was enough to influence the jury to render a conviction on grounds beyond the admissible evidence presented.’ ” United States v. Espinosa, 771 F. 2d 1382, 1401 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1023, 106 S.Ct. 579, 88 L.Ed.2d 561 (1985) (citations omitted). In evaluating whether a prosecutor’s comment had an impermissible effect on the jury’s deliberations, we consider: “ ‘the curative acts of the district court, the extent of the misconduct, a…
• United States v. PEÑA, 930 F.2d 1486 (10th Cir. 1991)
  …rgument by the prosecutor “unless the prosecutor’s misconduct ‘was enough to influence the jury to render a conviction on grounds beyond the admissible evidence presented.’ ” United States v. Espinosa, 771 F. 2d 1382, 1401 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1023, 106 S.Ct. 579, 88 L.Ed.2d 561 (1985) (quoting United States v. Dickey, 736 F. 2d 571, 596 [10th Cir.1984], cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1188, 105 S.Ct. 957, 83 L.Ed.2d 964 [1985]). See also United States v. Manriquez Arbizo, 833 F. 2d at 248. Consisten…
• United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc., 871 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1989)
  …of Mobile Materials, Inc. when it was dissolved in 1982. This court’s most comprehensive statement on the prerogative of an appellate court to overturn a sentence was announced in United States v. Espinosa, 771 F. 2d 1382 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1023, 106 S.Ct. 579, 88 L.Ed.2d 561 (1985). In that case we explained that when a sentence is imposed within statutory limits, it is not ordinarily subject to appellate review. We will review the sentences only if the trial judge based them on “misinfor…