WOODLIFF

v.

HOPKINS, COMMISSIONER, MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• United States v. Hiland, 909 F.2d 1114 (8th Cir. 1990)
  …s verdict is not sufficient to require reversal when the jury has been instructed that it must reach a unanimous verdict.” Berrisford v. Wood, 826 F. 2d 747, 754 (8th Cir.1987) (quoting Fryer v. Nix, 775 F. 2d 979, 992 (8th Cir.1985)), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1016, 108 S.Ct. 722, 98 L.Ed.2d 671 (1988). Other courts have recognized a number of factors that may result in a genuine danger of jury confusion, necessitating a specific unanimity instruction. See, e.g., Duncan, 850 F. 2d at 1114. The only one of the…
• Carlson v. State of Minn., 945 F.2d 1026 (8th Cir. 1991)
  …, 106 S.Ct. 600, 88 L.Ed.2d 579 (1985). Even if this issue were properly before us, Carlson’s argument would fail. State law governs questions about the admissibility of evidence. Berrisford v. Wood, 826 F. 2d 747, 749 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1016, 108 S.Ct. 722, 98 L.Ed.2d 671 (1988). We will reverse an evidentiary ruling only if the error infringes upon a specific federal constitutional right or is so grossly or conspicuously prejudicial that it fatally infected the trial and denied the de…
• United States v. Beckham, 968 F.2d 47 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
  …ifferent exception to the hearsay rule, the exception for adoptive admissions set forth in Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(B).3 This exception is firmly rooted in American jurisprudence. See Berrisford v. Wood, 826 F. 2d 747, 751 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1016, 108 S.Ct. 722, 98 L.Ed.2d 671 (1988); United States v. Monks, 774 F. 2d 945, 952 (9th Cir.1985); see also United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F. 2d 941, 949 (D.C.Cir.1973) (recognizing that adoptive admissions constitute “a long-recognized hearsay exce…