HOLLEMAN

v.

DUCKWORTH, WARDEN, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Thompson, 827 F.2d 1254 (9th Cir. 1987)
  …istrict judge has broad discretion to fashion and guide the procedures to be followed in cases before him. See, e.g., United States v. Toomey, 764 F. 2d 678, 682 (9th Cir.1985) (district judge has considerable discretion in voir dire), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1069, 106 S.Ct. 828, 88 L.Ed.2d 799 (1986); United States v. Walczak, 783 F. 2d 852, 857 (9th Cir.1986) (district judge has discretion whether to hold a hearing on motion to suppress). The second principle is that adversary proceedings are the norm in…
• United States v. Keskey, 863 F.2d 474 (7th Cir. 1988)
  …objection concerning whether all pertinent testimony had been read. See United States v. Gallo, 763 F. 2d 1504, 1531 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017, 106 S.Ct. 1200, 89 L.Ed.2d 314 (1986) and 474 U.S. 1068, 106 S.Ct. 826, 88 L.Ed.2d 798, 474 U.S. 1069, 106 S.Ct. 828, 88 L.Ed.2d 800 (1986) (three petitions for certiorari denied). Keskey responds that a knowing and intelligent waiver as to the completeness of the testimony read was not possible because there was no transcript available for counsel…
• United States v. Payne, 944 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1991)
  …est jurors for bias or partiality, the trial court may refuse questions which are “tied to prejudice only speculatively.” United States v. Jones, 722 F. 2d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1983); United States v. Toomey, 764 F. 2d 678 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1069, 106 S.Ct. 828, 88 L.Ed.2d 799 (1986). In Jones we recognized that there are several instances in which there is a real possibility of prejudice and a consequent need for specific voir dire questioning. One of those instances is when the case “ ‘in…