RUBINSTEIN

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• State v. Christopher, 623 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
  …ment does not, without more, disqualify him from prosecuting the case. “[M]ere first-hand knowledge of facts that will be proved at trial is not a per se bar to representation.” United States v. Hosford, 782 F. 2d 936, 938 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1118, 106 S.Ct. 1977, 90 L.Ed.2d 660 (1986). The fact that Kastre-nakes heard the statement aurally, absent a showing of some prejudice flowing from that occurrence, does not bar his participation. See People v. District Court In And For The Third Judi…
• United States v. Gonzalez, 940 F.2d 1413 (11th Cir. 1991)
  …st time on appeal that this notice was insufficient because it did not state a valid purpose. We decline to address this issue as it was not raised in the district court. United States v. Hosford, 782 F. 2d 936, 938 n. 1 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1118, 106 S.Ct. 1977, 90 L.Ed.2d 660 (1986). . The government argues that we should review this evidence under the plain error standard because appellants Sanchez and Garcia did not object at trial to this evidence based on Rule 404(b), but only on hear…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Lehder-Rivas, 955 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1992)
  …hen considering the erroneous admission of evidence that has not implicated constitutional rights. See, e.g., United States v. Cameron, 907 F. 2d 1051, 1059 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. Hosford, 782 F. 2d 936, 939-40 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1118, 106 S.Ct. 1977, 90 L.Ed.2d 660 (1986). . “[T]he testimony before the issuing judge was not recorded as required by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41(c).... [I]t is a factor to be considered....’’ Brief for the Appellant Reed at 39 (emphasis su…