Search | Punch and Jurists

U.S. v. Watkins, No. 95-3169 (10th Cir.) (85 F.3d 498) (June 7, 1996) (Judge Michael R. Murphy)

Article • July 1, 1996 • from P&J July, 1996

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Plea Discussions/Immunized Testimony - Use of

U.S. v. Watkins, No. 95-3169 (10th Cir.) (85 F.3d 498) (June 7, 1996) (Judge Michael R. Murphy) by Although this case does not refer to Rule 410, it does relate to the admissibility of statements made during plea discussions. The defendant in this case was charged with several drug counts. …

U.S. v. Conway, No. 95-2232 (1st Cir.) (81 F.3d 15) (April 11, 1996) (Judge Bailey Aldrich)

Article • May 1, 1996 • from P&J May, 1996

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Plea Discussions/Immunized Testimony - Use of

U.S. v. Conway, No. 95-2232 (1st Cir.) (81 F.3d 15) (April 11, 1996) (Judge Bailey Aldrich) by This is one of those rare cases in which a defendant appeals the court's decision not to grant him a downward departure for substantial assistance under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 - and he wins. …

U.S. v. Medina-Estrada, No. 95-4150 (10th Cir.) (81 F.3d 981) (April 16, 1996) (Judge James E. Barrett)

Article • January 1, 1995

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Plea Discussions/Immunized Testimony - Use of

U.S. v. Medina-Estrada, No. 95-4150 (10th Cir.) (81 F.3d 981) (April 16, 1996) (Judge James E. Barrett) by Based on the provisions of Rule 410 of the Fed.R.Evid. and Rule 11(e)(6) of the Fed.R.Crim.P., it is generally assumed that evidence of a guilty plea which is later withdrawn is not …

U.S. v. Medina-Estrada, No. 95-4150 (10th Cir.) (81 F.3d 981) (April 16, 1996) (Judge James E. Barrett)

Article • January 1, 1995 • from P&J May, 1996

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Plea Discussions/Immunized Testimony - Use of

U.S. v. Medina-Estrada, No. 95-4150 (10th Cir.) (81 F.3d 981) (April 16, 1996) (Judge James E. Barrett) by Based on the provisions of Rule 410 of the Fed.R.Evid. and Rule 11(e)(6) of the Fed.R.Crim.P., it is generally assumed that evidence of a guilty plea which is later withdrawn is not …

U.S. v. Mezzanatto, No. 92-50261 (9th Cir.) (998 F.2d 1452) (July 7, 1993) (Judge Joseph T. Sneed)

Article • January 1, 1994

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Plea Discussions/Immunized Testimony - Use of

U.S. v. Mezzanatto, No. 92-50261 (9th Cir.) (998 F.2d 1452) (July 7, 1993) (Judge Joseph T. Sneed) by

U.S. v. Mezzanatto, No. 92-50261 (9th Cir.) (998 F.2d 1452) (July 7, 1993) (Judge Joseph T. Sneed)

Article • January 1, 1994

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Plea Discussions/Immunized Testimony - Use of

U.S. v. Mezzanatto, No. 92-50261 (9th Cir.) (998 F.2d 1452) (July 7, 1993) (Judge Joseph T. Sneed) by

U.S. v. Stevens, No. 89-2736 (8th Cir.) (918 F.2d 1383) (November 21, 1990) (Judge Gerald W. Heaney)

Article • January 1, 1994

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Plea Discussions/Immunized Testimony - Use of

U.S. v. Stevens, No. 89-2736 (8th Cir.) (918 F.2d 1383) (November 21, 1990) (Judge Gerald W. Heaney) by In this case, the defendant faced a jury trial for a drug conspiracy involving approximately 150 pounds of marijuana. Shortly before his trial commenced, the government brought new charges for possession of …

U.S. v. Miller, No. 89-6067 (6th Cir.) (910 F.2d 1321) (August 10, 1990) (Judge Ralph B Jr. Guy)

Article • January 1, 1994

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Plea Discussions/Immunized Testimony - Use of

U.S. v. Miller, No. 89-6067 (6th Cir.) (910 F.2d 1321) (August 10, 1990) (Judge Ralph B Jr. Guy) by The Court stated: "Defendant Miller challenges the district court's authority to consider statements he made to his probation officer on two grounds. First, he contends that Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.8(a) prohibits …

U.S. v. Abanatha, No. 02-2916EA (8th Cir.) (999 F.2d 1246) (July 26, 1993) (Judge Richard S. Arnold)

Article • January 1, 1994

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Plea Discussions/Immunized Testimony - Use of

U.S. v. Abanatha, No. 02-2916EA (8th Cir.) (999 F.2d 1246) (July 26, 1993) (Judge Richard S. Arnold) by The Court agreed with one defendant's contention that it was improper for the presentence report to contain information that was provided by the defendant pursuant to an immunity agreement under U.S.S.G. § …