1. Criminal Law O1139 Court of Appeals reviews de novo a district court s decision regarding waiver of the attorney-client privilege.
|
|
- Sarah Darlene McKinney
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 where it raises an issue for the jury s decision. Klanseck v. Anderson Sales, 426 Mich. 78, 393 N.W.2d 356, 362 (1986). Jones & Co. presented sufficient evidence to warrant a mitigation of damages instruction. Jones & Co. offered testimony that after it lifted the suspension on Webster s shares, Webster instructed the sale of only the remainder of his original two million share order. In addition, Webster himself testified that Jones & Co. offered to sell his remaining 1.25 million shares even after NASDAQ suspended trading of Comparator shares. Under the Sutkiewicz three-prong test, we find that the district court erred by refusing to give the requested jury instruction or failing to formulate a more complete instruction of its own. We reverse for a new trial on damages. At this trial, the court should instruct the jury on Webster s duty to mitigate damages and Jones & Co. s burden to show that Webster failed to use every reasonable effort to mitigate his damages. Judgment on liability affirmed. The Judgment is reversed for a new trial on damages., UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff Appellee, v. Frederick DAKOTA ( ) and Jerrold Polinsky ( ), Defendants Appellants. Nos , United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: Aug. 3, Decided and Filed: Dec. 17, Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western U.S. v. DAKOTA Cite as 197 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 1999) 821 District of Michigan, Robert Holmes Bell, J., of paying kickbacks to an agent of an Indian tribal organization and conspiracy to pay kickbacks, and second defendant was convicted of receiving kickbacks and income tax fraud. Defendants appealed. On motion for rehearing, the Court of Appeals, Siler, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) defendant s conversation with tribal attorney regarding sharing in profits from video lottery devices installed tribal casino was not protected by attorney-client privilege; (2) tax fraud instructions were a correct statement of the law and substantially covered defense theory that unreported amounts were advances with duty for repayment; (3) double jeopardy clause did not bar district court from reinstating substantive charge under statute prohibiting bribery concerning federally-funded programs; (4) district court did not abuse its discretion in transferring venue; (5) district court s error in admitting documents seized from home office of defendant s son was harmless; and (6) alleged prosecutorial misconduct was not flagrant. Affirmed. Opinion, 188 F.3d 663, superseded. 1. Criminal Law O1139 Court of Appeals reviews de novo a district court s decision regarding waiver of the attorney-client privilege. 2. Witnesses O222 Burden of establishing the existence of the attorney-client privilege rests with the person asserting it. 3. Witnesses O199(2) Absent an indication that the lawyer should act in a capacity other than that of the company s lawyer, a corporate officer will not have an attorney-client privilege. 4. Witnesses O199(2) Defendant s conversation with tribal attorney in which defendant inquired
2 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES whether it was appropriate if he were to obtain a share of the profits generated by installing certain video lottery devices in Indian tribal casino was not protected by the attorney-client privilege, absent evidence that defendant contacted attorney for legal advice as an individual, as opposed to seeking advice from attorney in his position as tribal attorney. 5. Witnesses O219(3) Attorney-client privilege is waived by voluntary disclosure of private communications by an individual or corporation to third parties. 6. Witnesses O219(3) Client may waive the attorney-client privilege by conduct which implies a waiver of the privilege or a consent to disclosure. 7. Witnesses O219(3) Indian tribe s implicit consent to inspection of its documents, which defendants obtained by subpoena from tribal offices while those offices were occupied by an activist group, many of whom were not tribal officers, waived attorney-client privilege as to documents. 8. Criminal Law O822(1) Court of Appeals reviews jury instructions as a whole to determine whether they fairly and adequately submitted the issues and applicable law to the jury. 9. Internal Revenue O5317 Instructions advising jury on elements of tax fraud charge were a correct statement of the law and substantially covered defense theory that the unreported amounts were advances with a duty for repayment. 26 U.S.C.A Bribery O1(1) Federal statute prohibiting bribery concerning federally-funded programs, for purposes of prosecution arising from kickbacks paid in connection with Indian tribal casino, did not require a nexus between the alleged bribes and the federal funding received by the Indian tribe. 18 U.S.C.A Criminal Law O1139 Issues of statutory construction are reviewed de novo. 12. Criminal Law O1139 Claim of double jeopardy is reviewed de novo. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend Double Jeopardy O86 Although a defendant once acquitted may not be again subjected to trial without violating the double jeopardy clause, double jeopardy does not bar retrial when the defendant elected to seek termination of the trial on grounds unrelated to guilt or innocence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend Double Jeopardy O82.1 Double jeopardy clause did not bar reinstatement of substantive charge under statute prohibiting bribery concerning federally-funded programs, where district court did not resolve any factual element of charged offenses in defendant s favor, but rather, initially made a legal decision that multiple substantive counts of violations of statute would be viewed as overt acts in furtherance of conspiracy, rather than as separate crimes, and then reinstated single substantive charge. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; 18 U.S.C.A Criminal Law O1150 District court s decision to transfer venue is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule 18, 18 U.S.C.A. 16. Criminal Law O124 District court did not abuse its discretion in transferring venue of prosecution involving Indian casino kickbacks, based upon determination that interests of justice outweighed the expense and inconvenience of the transfer. Fed.Rules Cr.Proc. Rule 18, 18 U.S.C.A. 17. Criminal Law O1152(2) Decision to empanel an anonymous jury is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
3 18. Jury O144 Decision to empanel a partially anonymous jury to hear kickback charges involving Indian tribal casino, to minimize the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and an emotional, political atmosphere that created a risk of jury intimidation and improper influence, was not abuse of trial court s discretion. 19. Criminal Law O1139 While the Court of Appeals typically reviews evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard, it reviews de novo a district court s conclusion whether proffered evidence is inadmissible hearsay. 20. Criminal Law O436(2) To be admitted under the business records exception, the record must have been kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity, the regular practice of the business must have been to make the record, and the record must have been contemporaneously made by a person with knowledge of the transaction or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 803(6), 28 U.S.C.A. 21. Criminal Law O444 Witness testifying at trial must have knowledge of the record keeping procedures of the business for records to be admitted under the business records exception to hearsay rule. Fed.Rules Evid. Rule 803(6), 28 U.S.C.A. 22. Criminal Law O444 Testimony of federal agent, who was present when documents were seized from defendant s son s home office and who had analyzed documents for their relevance to kickback prosecution, was insufficient to establish foundation for admitting records under business records exception to hearsay rule; agent lacked knowledge of the recordkeeping procedures of defendant s son s business and was not custodian of those records for the business. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 803(6), 28 U.S.C.A. U.S. v. DAKOTA Cite as 197 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 1999) Criminal Law O422(1) Before a district court may admit statements of a co-conspirator, three factors must be established: (1) that the conspiracy existed; (2) that defendant was a member of the conspiracy; and (3) that the co-conspirator s statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy. Fed. Rules Evid.Rule 801(d)(2)(E), 28 U.S.C.A. 24. Criminal Law O695.5 Lack of findings regarding role of defendant s son in kickback conspiracy precluded admitting records seized from son s home office as statements by a co-conspirator in defendant s prosecution. Fed. Rules Evid.Rule 801(d)(2)(E), 28 U.S.C.A. 25. Criminal Law O629(1) Government failed to give pretrial notice to defendants as was required to admit records seized from defendant s son s home office under catch-all exception to hearsay rule in bribery prosecution. Fed. Rules Evid.Rule 803(24), 28 U.S.C.App.(1994 Ed.). 26. Criminal Law O1169.2(7) District court s error in admitting the documents seized from home office of defendant s son was harmless in prosecution for making and receiving kickbacks involving Indian tribal casino, where evidence from documents merely corroborated other evidence that one defendant was making alleged payments to the other. 18 U.S.C.A Criminal Law O1134(2) Claim of prosecutorial misconduct is evaluated in light of the record as a whole. 28. Criminal Law O1134(2, 3) Under test for claims of prosecutorial misconduct, the court first determines whether the prosecutor s remarks were improper and then examines improper conduct for flagrancy, considering: (1) the degree to which the remarks would mislead the jury and prejudice the accused, including whether a cautionary instruction was given to the jury; (2) whether the
4 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) whether the remarks were deliberately or accidentally placed before the jury; and (4) the strength of the evidence against the accused. 29. Criminal Law O1171.1(1) If alleged prosecutorial misconduct is found not to be flagrant, reversal is appropriate only when: (1) the proof against the defendant was not overwhelming; (2) opposing counsel objected to the conduct; and (3) the district court failed to give a curative instruction. 30. Criminal Law O1171.1(6), Prosecutor s remarks in bribery prosecution which accused defendant of fabricating his defense along with his lawyers and accountants, implied that defendant was taking money intended for his Indian tribe, and alleged connections between codefendant and organized crime could not be classified as flagrant or extensive and therefore did not constitute grounds for reversal. Judd R. Spray (argued and briefed), Office of the U.S. Attorney, Marquette, Michigan, for Plaintiff Appellee. Mark P. Stevens (briefed), Marquette, Michigan, Stuart G. Friedman (argued and briefed), Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Defendant Appellant Dakota. C. Mark Pickrell (argued and briefed), Nashville, Tennessee, for Defendant Appellant Polinsky. Before: SILER and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; GRAHAM, District Judge.* AMENDED OPINION SILER, Circuit Judge. Defendant Jerrold Polinsky appeals his convictions for paying kickbacks to an agent of an Indian tribal organization, a * The Honorable James L. Graham, United States District Judge for the Southern District violation of 18 U.S.C. 666, and of conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C Defendant Fred Dakota appeals his convictions for receiving kickbacks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666, and income tax fraud, in violation of 26 U.S.C Both challenge the admission of hearsay evidence under the business records exception, while Dakota also challenges a violation of his attorney-client privilege, improper jury instructions, lack of a nexus between the alleged payments and federal funds, transfer of venue, prosecutorial misconduct and double jeopardy. We affirm. BACKGROUND Keweenaw Bay Indian Community ( KBIC ) is a tribe of Chippewa Indians which operated a gaming casino on its reservation in Michigan using gaming machines leased from International Gaming Management ( IGM ) during 1991, 1992, and Polinsky is one of the founders of IGM and is its largest shareholder. He is also the sole shareholder of Spectrum Communications ( Spectrum ). During the period of the lease between KBIC and IGM, Spectrum acted as IGM s agent in placing gaming machines in Michigan. Also during this period, KBIC received more than $10,000 in any twelve-month period pursuant to various federal programs. Evidence relating to the kickback scheme showed payments from KBIC to IGM, from IGM to Spectrum, and from Spectrum to Dakota. Documents including check registers and canceled checks from IGM and Spectrum indicated this chain of payment. Special Agent Timothy Reed testified about documents seized at the home of Gary Polinsky, Jerrold Polinsky s son who was associated with IGM in a consulting capacity. For most of the payments Reed traced, he used documents from the home of Gary Polinsky. Dakota s of Ohio, sitting by designation.
5 tax returns for 1991, 1992, and 1993 did not include income from Spectrum. Tribal attorney Joseph O Leary testified to conversations with Dakota which took place in After O Leary questioned Dakota about kickbacks, Dakota asked him whether it would be appropriate if Dakota were to obtain a share of the profits generated by installing certain video lottery devices on the reservation. O Leary advised him twice that he would need to make a disclosure to the tribal council before they voted to install such devices. Dakota and Polinsky testified that Dakota had been paid by Spectrum as a spokesperson for a proposed telephone lottery to be run by IGM. They claimed that the payments to Dakota were advances. Dakota says that he did not report the money as current income in the disputed tax years because the monies were to be repaid to Spectrum if not later earned. An IRS agent testified that the money received by Dakota was taxable income whether or not characterized as advances. After the close of the prosecution s casein-chief, the district court granted a defense Rule 29 motion in part by consolidating all fifty counts of substantive violations of 18 U.S.C. 666 against Dakota and Polinsky with the conspiracy count. The government requested reconsideration of that decision, asking that one substantive count go to the jury along with the conspiracy count. At the end of all evidence, the district court reinstated one substantive count. DISCUSSION I. ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE [1 3] This court reviews de novo a district court s decision regarding waiver of U.S. v. DAKOTA Cite as 197 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 1999) 825 the attorney-client privilege. See United States v. Collis, 128 F.3d 313, 320 (6th Cir.1997). The burden of establishing the existence of the privilege rests with the person asserting it. See In re Grand Jury Investigation No , 723 F.2d 447, 450 (6th Cir.1983). Absent an indication that the lawyer should act in a capacity other than that of the company s lawyer, a corporate officer will not have a privilege. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Detroit Michigan, August, 1977, 434 F.Supp. 648, 650 (E.D.Mich.1977), aff d, 570 F.2d 562, 563 (6th Cir.1978) (affirming for the reasons set forth in the district court opinion). [4] The only evidence Dakota submitted in support of his claim of privilege was the affidavit of O Leary, which is insufficient to support the claim of attorney 1 - client privilege. O Leary was counsel for KBIC, and his affidavit does not establish that Dakota contacted O Leary for legal advice as an individual as opposed to seeking advice from O Leary in his position as tribal attorney. The district court correctly ruled that Dakota s conversations with O Leary were not protected by the attorney-client privilege. [5 7] The attorney-client privilege is waived by voluntary disclosure of private communications by an individual or corporation to third parties. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings Oct. 12, 1995, 78 F.3d 251, 254 (6th Cir.1996). In addition, a client may waive the privilege by conduct which implies a waiver of the privilege or a consent to disclosure. See In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 104 (2d Cir.1987). Here, the KBIC impliedly consented to inspec- 1. Dakota has petitioned the court for a rehearing, asserting that the court mistakenly stated that the only evidence Dakota presented to show such a relationship was the affidavit of O Leary. It is true that Dakota presented his own affidavit to assert the attorneyclient relationship, but it was filed subsequent to the ruling by the magistrate judge that no attorney-client privilege existed between O Leary and Dakota. That ruling was upheld by the district court, which went on to hold that even considering the Dakota affidavit, there was insufficient evidence to establish the existence of an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, even considering the tardilyfiled affidavit by Dakota, we hold the district court did not err in finding that there was no attorney-client relationship between O Leary and Dakota.
6 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES tion of its documents, which the defendants obtained by subpoena from its offices while those offices were occupied by an activist group, many of whom were not tribal officers. The KBIC did not object to the subpoena or the inspection of the documents by any of investigators. In addition, the KBIC did not object to Polinsky s use of the documents although he is not a member of the tribe. Any joint defense agreement between Dakota and Polinsky would not alter the nature of Polinsky s inspection of the documents. Perhaps most importantly, Dakota does not state on appeal which, if any, of the controversial KBIC documents were placed into evidence and how that evidence harmed him at trial. Without a showing that the documents were placed into evidence, this court cannot determine whether the documents were improperly disclosed in violation of the KBIC s privilege. Thus, the trial court acted properly in finding a valid waiver. II. INSTRUCTIONS [8, 9] As to the alleged error in the tax fraud instructions, this court reviews jury instructions as a whole to determine whether they fairly and adequately submitted the issues and applicable law to the jury. United States v. Williams, 952 F.2d 1504, 1512 (6th Cir.1991). The instructions were a correct statement of the law and substantially covered Dakota s defense theory that the unreported amounts were advances with a duty for repayment. The district court did not err here. III. FUNDING NEXUS [10, 11] Dakota argues that 18 U.S.C. 666 requires that the government demonstrate a nexus between the alleged bribes and the federal funding received by KBIC. Issues of statutory construction are reviewed de novo. See United States v. Wuliger, 981 F.2d 1497 (6th Cir.1992). Under Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 118 S.Ct. 469, 139 L.Ed.2d 352 (1997), no direct link is required between the federal monies and the corrupt activity for conviction under 666, but the nature of any necessary connection is left unanswered. In United States v. Valentine, 63 F.3d 459 (6th Cir.1995), this court construed another provision of 666 and found that the statute requires no relationship between the illegal activity and the federal funding. Thus, the district court correctly ruled that 18 U.S.C. 666 does not require a nexus between the alleged bribes and the federal funding received by KBIC. IV. DOUBLE JEOPARDY [12 14] A claim of double jeopardy is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Neal, 93 F.3d 219, 220 (6th Cir.1996). Although a defendant once acquitted may not be again subjected to trial without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, double jeopardy does not bar retrial when the defendant elected to seek termination of the trial on grounds unrelated to guilt or innocence. United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 96, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978). The district court did not resolve any of the factual elements of the charged offenses in Dakota s favor. Instead, it initially made a legal decision that the multiple substantive counts of violations of 666 should be viewed as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy rather than as separate crimes. The government requested reconsideration, and the court subsequently reinstated one substantive count. Because the district court did not factually acquit Dakota, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar reinstatement of the substantive charge. V. VENUE [15, 16] The district court s decision to transfer venue from Marquette to Grand Rapids within the same district is governed by Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and reviewed for abuse of discretion. See In re Ford, 987 F.2d 334, 342 (6th Cir.1992). The district
7 court found that the interests of justice outweighed the expense and inconvenience of the transfer. It did not abuse its discretion when it transferred the case to Grand Rapids. VI. ANONYMOUS JURY [17, 18] The decision to empanel an anonymous jury is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Talley, 164 F.3d 989, 1001 (6th Cir.1999). The district court decided to empanel a partially anonymous jury in order to minimize the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and an emotional, political atmosphere that created a risk of jury intimidation and improper influence. The court created a solution to remedy the concern about potential juror intimidation which avoided possible juror bias, and it did not abuse its discretion in doing so. VII. ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS [19 21] Dakota and Polinsky challenge the admission of documents seized from Gary Polinsky s home office, arguing that the documents were inadmissible hearsay. The government argues that the documents were admissible under the business records exception, Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), or under the exception for admissions made by a co-conspirator, Rule 801(d)(2)(E). While this court typically reviews evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard, this court reviews de novo a district court s conclusion whether proffered evidence is inadmissible hearsay. United States v. Latouf, 132 F.3d 320, 329 (6th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Fountain, 2 F.3d 656, 668 (6th Cir.1993)). To be admitted under the business records exception, the record must have been kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity, the regular practice of the business must have been to make the record, and the record must have been contemporaneously made by a person with knowledge of the transaction or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge. See United States U.S. v. DAKOTA Cite as 197 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 1999) 827 v. Stavroff, 149 F.3d 478, 484 (6th Cir. 1998). The witness testifying at trial must have knowledge of the record keeping procedures of the business. See United States v. Sturman, 951 F.2d 1466, 1489 (6th Cir.1991). [22] The district court did not explicitly state which hearsay exception was applicable to the documents seized from Gary Polinsky s home office, but because the business records exception was the government s favored theory of admissibility at trial and on appeal, this court may conclude that the evidence was admitted under that exception. See United States v. Fawaz, 881 F.2d 259, 266 (6th Cir.1989). The admission of the documents was supported by the testimony of Agent Reed, who was present when the documents were seized and who had analyzed the documents for their relevance to the issues at trial. He did not have knowledge of the recordkeeping procedures of Gary Polinsky s business and was certainly not the custodian of those records for the business. The district court erred in admitting the documents as business records. [23 25] The government argues that even if the documents were not admissible as business records, they are admissible as statements by co-conspirators, under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). However, [b]efore a district court may admit statements of a co-conspirator, three factors must be established: (1) that the conspiracy existed; (2) that defendant was a member of the conspiracy; and (3) that the co-conspirator s statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Wilson, 168 F.3d 916, 920 (6th Cir.1999). The district court made no findings regarding Gary Polinsky s role in the conspiracy which would satisfy the prerequisites for admissibility under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). The government also urges that the catch-all hearsay exception in Rule 803(24) applies to the documents, but the prerequisites for admission under that rule have not been met, as the government did not give the
8 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES required pretrial notice to defendants. See FED.R.EVID. 803(24). [26] Even though the district court erred in admitting the documents from Gary Polinsky s home office, the error was harmless. See United States v. Wiedyk, 71 F.3d 602, 607 (6th Cir.1995). The evidence from these documents found in the safe merely corroborates other evidence that Jerrold Polinsky was paying Dakota. The fact that payments were made was not in dispute; defendants said they were advancements for a telephone lottery. VIII. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT [27 29] A claim of prosecutorial misconduct is evaluated in light of the record as a whole. See United States v. Causey, 834 F.2d 1277, 1284 (6th Cir.1987). This court has set forth a two-part test to be applied to claims of prosecutorial misconduct. First, the court determines whether the prosecutor s remarks were improper. See United States v. Carroll, 26 F.3d 1380, 1387 (6th Cir.1994). Improper conduct is then examined for flagrancy, considering four factors: (1) the degree to which the remarks would mislead the jury and prejudice the accused, including whether a cautionary instruction was given to the jury; (2) whether the remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) whether the remarks were deliberately or accidentally placed before the jury; and (4) the strength of the evidence against the accused. See id. at 1384, If the conduct is found not to be flagrant, reversal is appropriate only when (1) the proof against the defendant was not overwhelming, (2) opposing counsel objected to the conduct, and (3) the district court failed to give a curative instruction. See id. at [30] Here Dakota challenges remarks which accused him of fabricating his defense along with his lawyers and accountants, implied that he was taking money intended for his tribe, and alleged connections between co-defendant Polinsky and the Mafia. Objections to both the defense fabrication remark and the Mafia remark were sustained. No cautionary instruction was given to the jury regarding the defense fabrication remark. When considered in light of the trial as a whole, these remarks cannot be said to have been flagrant. Three separate and unrelated remarks in this trial cannot be classified as extensive and therefore do not constitute grounds for reversal. AFFIRMED., Charles KINCAID, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs Appellants, v. Betty GIBSON, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Vice President of Student Affairs of Kentucky State University, et al., Defendants Appellees. No United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Nov. 29, Before MARTIN, Chief Judge; MERRITT, RYAN, BOGGS, NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, SILER, BATCHELDER, DAUGHTREY, MOORE, COLE, CLAY, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges. Prior report: 191 F.3d 719 ORDER A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service have voted for rehearing of this case en banc. Sixth Circuit Rule 35(a) provides as follows:
of unfair prejudice. Fed.Rules Evid. Rule 404(b), 28 U.S.C.A.
U.S. v. CARTER Cite as 779 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2015) 623 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff Appellee, v. Jason Anthony CARTER, Defendant Appellant. No. 14 5276. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 30, 2004 v No. 246345 Kalkaska Circuit Court IVAN LEE BECHTOL, LC No. 01-002162-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4609 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, versus Plaintiff - Appellee, DAMON BRIGHTMAN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-4612 UNITED STATES OF
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 19, 2005 v No. 254007 Wayne Circuit Court FREDDIE LATESE WOMACK, LC No. 03-005553-01 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 49 1
Article 49. Pleadings and Joinder. 15A-921. Pleadings in criminal cases. Subject to the provisions of this Article, the following may serve as pleadings of the State in criminal cases: (1) Citation. (2)
More informationIN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 15A PC-2889 STATE S BRIEF OF APPELLEE
IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS No. 15A04-1712-PC-2889 DANIEL BREWINGTON, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent. Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court 2, No. 15D02-1702-PC-3,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 18a0061p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ROBERT PORTER, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-1-2009 USA v. Gordon Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3934 Follow this and additional
More informationSAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS v. ENGLER Cite as 146 F.3d 367 (6th Cir. 1998)
SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS v. ENGLER Cite as 146 F.3d 367 (6th Cir. 1998) 367 taxes in estimating economic loss. Paducah Area Public Library v. Terry, 655 S.W.2d 19, 23 24 (Ky.App.1983).
More informationFEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES
182 384 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES [4] It is uncontested that the Bo Mac construction site, at the time of Tarver s injury, was not serving a maritime purpose. Further, Tarver acknowledges that the site
More informationCOURT RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS
COURT RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. Title... 2 Section 2. Purpose... 2 Section 3. Definitions... 2 Section 4. Fundamental Rights of Defendants... 4 Section 5. Arraignment...
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE V. WILLIAM JOSEPH TAYLOR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE V. WILLIAM JOSEPH TAYLOR Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Wilson County No. 98-896 J. O. Bond, Judge No. M1999-00218-CCA-R3-CD
More informationSAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA
SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA v. ENGLER Cite as 271 F.3d 235 (6th Cir. 2001) 235 Second, as Mazurek s argument on appeal confirms, the information he sought to procure through discovery and to present
More informationFOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE, in its official capacity ) No. 01-15007 and as a representative of its Tribal members; ) Bishop Paiute Gaming Corporation,
More informationUSA v. Chikezie Onyenso
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-29-2015 USA v. Chikezie Onyenso Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 17, 2008 v No. 276504 Allegan Circuit Court DAVID ALLEN ROWE, II, LC No. 06-014843-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. v. No ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 26, 2007 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No.
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07) In American trials complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to
More information3. Sentencing and Punishment O978
U.S. v. JOKHOO Cite as 806 F.3d 1137 (8th Cir. 2015) 1137 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff Appellee v. Khemall JOKHOO, also known as Kenny Jokhoo, also known as Kevin Smith, also known as Kevin Day,
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-3-2014 USA v. Victor Patela Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-2255 Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
U.S. v. Dukes IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 04-14344 D. C. Docket No. 03-00174-CR-ODE-1-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCES J. DUKES, a.k.a.
More informationSEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA Tribal Court Small Claims Rules of Procedure Table of Contents RULE 7.010. TITLE AND SCOPE... 3 RULE 7.020. APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE... 3 RULE 7.040. CLERICAL
More informationS T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 16, 2018 v No. 333572 Wayne Circuit Court ANTHONY DEAN JONES, LC No. 15-005730-01-FC
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-1748 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. KYVANI OCASIO-RUIZ, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. File Name: 07a0786n.06. Filed: November 8, Nos and
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0786n.06 Filed: November 8, 2007 Nos. 06-5381 and 06-5382 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT VINCENT ZIRKER and ROOSEVELT PITTS,
More informationCourt Records Glossary
Court Records Glossary Documents Affidavit Answer Appeal Brief Case File Complaint Deposition Docket Indictment Interrogatories Injunction Judgment Opinion Pleadings Praecipe A written or printed statement
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 9, 2015 v No. 317282 Jackson Circuit Court TODD DOUGLAS ROBINSON, LC No. 12-003652-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationJohn M. ROLWING, Appellee, v. NESTLE HOLDINGS, INC., Appellant. No
ROLWING v. NESTLE HOLDINGS, INC. Cite as 666 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2012) 1069 John M. ROLWING, Appellee, v. NESTLE HOLDINGS, INC., Appellant. No. 11 3445. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010 BILLY HARRIS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 01-02675 Carolyn Wade
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 4, 2014 v Nos. 310870; 310872 Macomb Circuit Court DAVID AARON CLARK, LC Nos. 2011-001981-FH;
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 12, 2014 v No. 315683 Kent Circuit Court CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL CAMPOS, LC No. 12-002640-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-15-2008 USA v. Fleming Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3640 Follow this and additional
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 11a0121n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 11a0121n.06 No. 08-2111 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DERIC D. BALARK, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationRECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES
RECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES March 6, 2013 Christofer Bates, EDPA SUPREME COURT I. Aiding and Abetting / Accomplice Liability / 924(c) Rosemond v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2014 WL 839184
More informationMISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS HAND DOWN DATE: 9/20/2016
MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS HAND DOWN DATE: 9/20/2016 SIMS v. STATE, NO. 2015-KA-01311-COA http://courts.ms.gov/images/opinions/co115582.pdf Topics: Armed robbery - Ineffective assistance of
More informationTENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * On October 20, 2006, Jonearl B. Smith was charged by complaint with
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 23, 2011 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationVideo Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched
Garden State CLE 21 Winthrop Road Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 Atty2starz@aol.com! Video Course Evaluation Form Attorney Name Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT
E-Filed Document Jun 27 2018 15:48:34 2017-KA-01632-SCT Pages: 19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIAN KING APPELLANT VS. NO. 2017-KA-01632 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR THE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No. 01-CV BC Honorable David M. Lawson PAUL RENICO,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION JOSEPH RICHMOND, Petitioner, v. Case No. 01-CV-10054-BC Honorable David M. Lawson PAUL RENICO, Respondent. / OPINION AND ORDER
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 22, 2005 v No. 256450 Alpena Circuit Court MELISSA KAY BELANGER, LC No. 03-005903-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCase 5:12-cv KES Document 27 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 316 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION
Case 5:12-cv-05004-KES Document 27 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 316 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION DONROY GHOST BEAR, Petitioner, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationSIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...3 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Title 1, Chapter 38...3 TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I: General Provisions...4 Article IV: Relevancy
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BONGANI CHARLES CALHOUN PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT
NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BONGANI CHARLES CALHOUN PETITIONER VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC14-2049 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. CYRUS A. BISCHOFF, Respondent. [March 2, 2017] We have for review a referee s report recommending that Respondent, Cyrus
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1247 RONALD E. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 4, 2017 v No. 328577 Wayne Circuit Court MALCOLM ABEL KING, LC No. 15-002226-01-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationUSA v. Frederick Banks
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-29-2010 USA v. Frederick Banks Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2452 Follow this and
More informationNAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1
NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1 Question: The Ethics Counselors of the National Association for Public Defense (NAPD) have been asked to address the following scenario: An investigator working for Defense
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 17, 2013 v No. 306765 Wayne Circuit Court GERALD PERRY DICKERSON, LC No. 10-012687-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCase 6:18-cr RBD-DCI Document 59 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 393 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Case 6:18-cr-00043-RBD-DCI Document 59 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 393 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. 6:18-cr-43-Orl-37DCI
More informationBefore STEWART, GASKINS and PEATROSS, JJ.
Judgment rendered November 2, 2011. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. No. 46,517-CA No. 46,518-CA (Consolidated Cases) COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 03 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFONSO W. JANUARY, an individual, No. 12-56171 and Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 12a0035p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, X -- -
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit July 7, 2015 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff S Appellee,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2006 v No. 263852 Marquette Circuit Court MICHAEL ALBERT JARVI, LC No. 03-040571-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ANGELA MASSENBERG, Independent Personal Representative of the Estate of MATTIE LU JONES, Deceased, UNPUBLISHED September 25, 2003 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 236985 Wayne
More informationAnthony Reid v. Secretary PA Dept Corr
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-25-2011 Anthony Reid v. Secretary PA Dept Corr Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-3727
More informationIN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No CR No CR
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-15-00133-CR No. 10-15-00134-CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, v. LOUIS HOUSTON JARVIS, JR. AND JENNIFER RENEE JONES, Appellant Appellees From the County Court at Law No. 1 McLennan
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
ABRAHAM HAGOS, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit December 9, 2013 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROGER WERHOLTZ,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 23, 2012 v No. 306148 Wayne Circuit Court MICHAEL JANUARY, LC No. 11-002271 Defendant-Appellee.
More informationv No v No
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 1, 2018 v No. 335078 Ingham Circuit Court JAMES C. MULHOLLAND, JR., LC No.
More information**************************************** I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O clock M CLERK, DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI STATE OF
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC95738 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. LARRY LAMAR GAINES, Appellee. PARIENTE, J. [November 2, 2000] CORRECTED OPINION We have for review State v. Gaines, 731 So. 2d 7 (Fla.
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-29-2015 USA v. David Calhoun Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationUSA v. Brian Campbell
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-7-2012 USA v. Brian Campbell Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-4335 Follow this and
More informationDEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER NOVEMBER 2014 INSIDE THIS ISSUE
DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER NOVEMBER 2014 INSIDE THIS ISSUE Collateral Consequences Resource Center Launches Website Page 1 Recent Third
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 7, 2012 v No. 302671 Kalkaska Circuit Court JAMES EDWARD SCHMIDT, LC No. 10-003224-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH (Filed Electronically) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06CR-19-R UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH (Filed Electronically) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06CR-19-R UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, vs. STEVEN DALE GREEN, DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 3, 2002 v No. 234028 Wayne Circuit Court PAUL E. MCDANIEL, LC No. 00-000613 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION January 4, 2007 9:05 a.m. v No. 259014 Oakland Circuit Court DWIGHT-STERLING DAVID
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-29-2012 USA v. David;Moro Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-3838 Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE
Houchins v. Jefferson County Board of Education Doc. 106 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE KELLILYN HOUCHINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 3:10-CV-147 ) JEFFERSON
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED NOV 26 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AHMED SARCHIL KAZZAZ
More information1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: April 5, No. A-1-CA STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: April 5, 2018 4 No. A-1-CA-36304 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v. 8 STEVEN VANDERDUSSEN, 9 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 15, 2001 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 15, 2001 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RANDALL LLOYD HILL Appeal from the Circuit Court for Cheatham County No. 12439 Robert E. Burch,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D (CORRECTED) STATE OF FLORIDA,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004 GARDINER S. SOMERVELL, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D03-1751 (CORRECTED) STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed July
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 20, 2004 v No. 246154 Wayne Circuit Court EFRAIM GARCIA, LC No. 01-011952-03 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationv No Ingham Circuit Court v No Ingham Circuit Court ON REMAND
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 15, 2017 v No. 321352 Ingham Circuit Court VICKIE ROSE HAMLIN, LC No. 13-000924-FH
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-30295 Document: 00512831156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY : : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N
[Cite as State v. Ali, 2015-Ohio-1472.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. OMAR ALI Defendant-Appellant C.A. CASE NO. 2014 CA 59
More informationBEFORE: KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice.
People v. McKinney, 2018 Guam 10, Opinion Page 2 of 9 BEFORE: KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice. CARBULLIDO, J.: [1] Defendant-Appellant
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 4, 2014 v No. 313482 Macomb Circuit Court HOWARD JAMAL SANDERS, LC No. 2012-000892-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-1-2010 USA v. Steven Trenk Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-2486 Follow this and additional
More informationCOUNSEL JUDGES. Wood, C.J., wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: Leila Andrews J., Lewis R. Sutin, J. (Specially Concurring) AUTHOR: WOOD OPINION
1 STATE V. MESTAS, 1980-NMCA-001, 93 N.M. 765, 605 P.2d 1164 (Ct. App. 1980) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JERRY LEWIS MESTAS, Defendant-Appellant No. 4092 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
More informationCase 1:05-cv RAE Document 109 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-00264-RAE Document 109 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION K.B.A. CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:05-CV-264
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-26-2013 USA v. Jo Benoit Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-3745 Follow this and additional
More informationUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Wilbur HALE, Defendant-Appellant. No United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Cite as: 978 F.2d 1016 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilbur HALE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-3830. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted June 10, 1992. Decided Oct.
More informationacquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
GlosaryofLegalTerms acquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. affidavit: A written statement of facts confirmed by the oath of the party making
More information2007 WI APP 256 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION
2007 WI APP 256 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2006AP2095-CR Complete Title of Case: STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. SCOTT R. JENSEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Opinion
More informationCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Local Rules 29.0 ARBITRATION
29.0 ARBITRATION PART I: CASES FOR SUBMISSION (A) A case shall be placed upon the Arbitration List if so ordered by a Judge after a Case Management Conference, pretrial or settlement conference and the
More informationCase 8:18-cr TDC Document 35 Filed 10/23/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:18-cr-00012-TDC Document 35 Filed 10/23/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Criminal No. TDC-18-0012 MARK T. LAMBERT, Defendant.
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Snow, 2009-Ohio-1336.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 24298 Appellant v. DALTON J. SNOW Appellee APPEAL
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 26, 2017 v No. 328331 Wayne Circuit Court ELLIOT RIVERS, also known as, MELVIN LC No. 14-008795-01-FH
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 2, 2003 9:05 a.m. v No. 241147 Saginaw Circuit Court KEANGELA SHAVYONNE MCGEE, LC No. 01-020523-FH
More informationTEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE FORMS ANNOTATED
TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE FORMS ANNOTATED 1.1 SURETY S AFFIDAVIT TO SURRENDER PRINCIPAL Order By Daniel L. Young PART ONE STATE PROCEEDINGS CHAPTER 1. BAIL 1.2 SURETY S AFFIDAVIT TO SURRENDER PRINCIPAL CURRENTLY
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 21, 2014 v No. 314821 Oakland Circuit Court DONALD CLAYTON STURGIS, LC No. 2012-240961-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2006 v No. 263625 Grand Traverse Circuit Court COLE BENJAMIN HOOKER, LC No. 04-009631-FC
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 20, 2005 v No. 257103 Wayne Circuit Court D JUAN GARRETT, LC No. 03-012254 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationRule 605. Competency of judge as witness. NC General Statutes - Chapter 8C Article 6 1
Article 6. Witnesses. Rule 601. General rule of competency; disqualification of witness. (a) General rule. Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules. (b) Disqualification
More informationTRIAL EVIDENCE: MAKING AND MEETING OBJECTIONS
TRIAL EVIDENCE: MAKING AND MEETING OBJECTIONS By: EDWARD A. MALLETT MALLETT GUIBERSON SAPER, L.L.P. 600 Travis Street, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77002 713-236-1900 telephone 713-228-0321 facsimile edward@mgscounsel.com
More information