EMOND

v.

UNITED STATES; GORMAN V. UNITED STATES; STELTEN V. UNITED STATES; HAWLEY V. UNITED STATES; AND HAWLEY V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Jaan Karl Laaman v. United States, 973 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1992)
  …g binding force of prior Tenth Circuit ruling suppressing evidence because of warrants’ lack of particularity, but allowing admission of evidence because of law enforcement officers’ objectively reasonable reliance upon same warrants), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 828, 110 S.Ct. 95, 107 L.Ed.2d 59 (1989). In any event, whether or not the district court in the District of Massachusetts should have accorded preclusive effect to the prior rulings in this circuit regarding suppression of the evidence seized from the…
• United States v. Harnage, 976 F.2d 633 (11th Cir. 1992)
  …, prohibits prosecution of the crime itself, whereas collateral estoppel ‘simply forbids the government from relitigating certain facts in order to establish the fact of the crime.’ ” Ferenc v. Dugger, 867 F. 2d 1301, 1303 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 828, 110 S.Ct. 95, 107 L.Ed.2d 59 (1989) (citation omitted). A defendant’s use of collateral estoppel also extends to evidentiary facts. United States v. Lee, 622 F. 2d 787, 789 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303…
• United States v. Miller, 997 F.2d 1010 (2d Cir. 1993)
  …third property interest identified in the Indictment is the “use of at least $15,000 obtained from the [Group] for the payment of the deposit on the [Apartments].” Primarily invoking United States v. Kerkman, 866 F. 2d 877 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 828, 110 S.Ct. 95, 107 L.Ed.2d 59 (1989), the government contends that Miller and Adolfs use of the Group’s funds to pay down payments required by the Cohen Agreement constituted a deprivation of the Group’s “property” by fraud in violation of § 1341.…