SPALLA

v.

FOLTZ, ADMINISTRATOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Lilly, 983 F.2d 300 (1st Cir. 1992)
  …. State of Indiana, 793 F. 2d 143, 145 (7th Cir.) (finding no due process violation where a prosecutor who had previously represented the defendant elicited on cross-examination information which was already a matter of public record), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 935, 107 S.Ct. 411, 93 L.Ed.2d 363 (1986). Second, it is open to serious question whether, even on a worst-case scenario, Durrell’s interest is the sort which implicates due process concerns. Prosecutors need not be empty vessels, completely devoid of…
• United States v. Keith Drake (88-2175), 885 F.2d 323 (6th Cir. 1989)
  …he fact that a defendant has not testified. The law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence. . See, e.g., Spalla v. Foltz, 788 F. 2d 400, 404 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 935, 107 S.Ct. 410, 93 L.Ed.2d 362 (1986). . In United States v. Kirby, 838 F. 2d 189 (6th Cir.1988), we upheld the trial judge’s discretion to give the standard instruction over the vigorous objection of the defendant.…