 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| United States v. Palma, No. 06-1772,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the court agreed that a prosecutor's comments were improper because they invoked the individual pecuniary interests of the jurors as taxpayers, the court could not conclude that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial or in denying defendant a new trial given the strength of the government's case.
|
|||||
| Scott v. United States, No. 06-2499,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 appeal, appellant could not have been deprived of his "right" to effective assistance by counsel's failure to appeal the denial of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion for a substantial assistance reduction; thus, appellant's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion was properly denied.
|
|||||
| United States v. Copley, No. 06-2773,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision that defendant was not mentally competent to stand trial was remanded for a hearing at which government's expert would testify by videoconference because substantial question existed as to whether his telephonic examination was inconsistent with defendant's confrontation rights under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 4241(c) and 4247(d) and Sixth Amendment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
