KINNELL

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Noone, 913 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1990)
  …nces. See infra note 19. The district court has broad discretion to determine the content of its questions on voir dire. See, e.g., Real v. Hogan, 828 F. 2d 58, 62 (1st Cir.1987); United States v. Collatus, 798 F. 2d 18, 21 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993, 107 S.Ct. 594, 93 L.Ed.2d 595 (1986). See also Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(a). The district court undoubtedly was trying to temper the government's request by rephrasing it in terms of "prejudice.” The defendant, at the time, did nothing to note or correct th…
• United States v. Nazzaro, 889 F.2d 1158 (1st Cir. 1989)
  …llowed this directive, see, e.g., Doherty, 867 F. 2d at 69; United States v. Glantz, 847 F. 2d 1, 11 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Stackpole, 811 F. 2d 689, 695 (1st Cir.1987); United States v. Collatos, 798 F. 2d 18, 19 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993, 107 S.Ct. 594, 93 L.Ed.2d 595 (1986); Scivola, 766 F. 2d at 44, and deem ourselves firmly bound by the precedent. In any event, appellant has offered us no persuasive reason to depart from so established a principle.4 Nazzaro’s contention that the…
• United States v. SAI Keung Wong, 886 F.2d 252 (9th Cir. 1989)
  …dants to participate in the importation of heroin. There is no suggestion that any governmental agent was “responsible for ... conduct which implants a criminal disposition.” United States v. Goodacre, 793 F. 2d 1124, 1125 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993, 107 S.Ct. 595, 93 L.Ed.2d 595 (1986). Furthermore, nothing in the informant’s testimony would indicate that the defendants were not predisposed to commit the offenses charged in this case. Id. (no entrapment defense if defendants were predisposed t…