HENDERSON

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (U.S. 1992)
  …d, the state confinement must be the product of action by federal law enforcement [*340] officials. United States v. Garcia-Gutierrez, 836 F. 2d 585, 586 (6th Cir. 1988); United States v. Harris, 876 F. 2d 1502, 1506 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, [493 U. S. 1005] (1989). The federal detainer must be the exclusive reason a prisoner in state custody has not been released on bail. United States v. Blankenship, 733 F. 2d 433, 434 (6th Cir. 1984).” Brief for Appellee in No. 89-6583, pp. 14-15. Those Courts of A…
• United States v. George, 960 F.2d 97 (9th Cir. 1992)
  …rsay testimony from Dr. Ortiz-Pino and investigator Akeah violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause. Alleged violations of the Confrontation Clause are reviewed de novo. United States v. Jenkins, 884 F. 2d 433, 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1005, 110 S.Ct. 568, 107 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989). The hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause are not coextensive. Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3146, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). Hearsay testimony is barred by the Confrontation Clause in crimi…
• United States v. Payne, 944 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1991)
  …iewed for abuse of discretion, United States v. Gillespie, 852 F. 2d 475, 479 (9th Cir.1988), since he alleges violation of his confrontation rights, we review the issue de novo. United States v. Jenkins, 884 F. 2d 433, 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1005, 110 S.Ct. 568, 107 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989). Because we would affirm the district court’s ruling on this issue under either standard of review, we need not decide which standard applies. . At the time of Payne's indictment, the offense of "carnal knowle…