Citation network
Harris Vs. Rivera
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 14, 1981
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 339 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Harris v. RiveraSearch
-
U.S. 339 (1981) Harris v. RiveraSearch
-
Respondent's convictions were affirmed on appeal. People v. RiveraSearch
-
aside. We have so held with respect to inconsistency between verdicts on separate charges against one defendant, Dunn v. UnitedSearch
-
and also with respect to verdicts that treat codefendants in a joint trial inconsistently, United States v. DotterweichSearch
-
habeas corpus review, and does not rise to the level of a constitutional infringement, United States ex rel. Nersesian v. SmithSearch
-
F.Supp. 26, 27 (SDNY 1976) unless 'there was no proof whatever of the crime charged.' United States ex rel. Terry v. HendersonSearch
-
App. to Pet. for Cert. A-12. The District Court's ruling predated this Court's decision in Jackson v. VirginiaSearch
-
See id. at 94. The Court of Appeals relied on United States v. MayburySearch
-
Dunn v. UnitedSearch
-
rested on the trial judge's erroneous view of the law could not justify reversal of the conviction. See United States v. WilsonSearch
-
F.2d at 91. In United States v. Duz-MorSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In Cupp v. NaughtenSearch
-
holding is an appropriate exercise of the supervisory power over federal district courts. See, e.g., United States v. WestSearch
-
See Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
-
See Morrisey v. BrewerSearch
-
there is a diminished justification for requiring a judge to explain his rulings. See Connecticut Board of Pardons v. DumschatSearch
-
Accord, Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 418 U. S. 87 , 418 U. S. 101 (1974). Cf. Hartzell v. UnitedSearch
-
Standefer v. UnitedSearch
-
running the business of the corporation, is immaterial. Juries may indulge in precisely such motives or vagaries. Dunn v. UnitedSearch
-
his last for the Court, characteristically was brief and to the point. He quoted the following passage from Steckler v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 284 U.S. at 284 U. S. 393 . After citing Horning v. DistrictSearch
-
Cf. Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
-
In Townsend v. SainSearch
-
Jackson v. VirginiaSearch
-
rejecting respondent's equal protection challenge to the allegedly inconsistent verdicts). See also North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
holding even if some constitutional right of the convicted defendant were more clearly implicated. In Henderson v. KibbeSearch
-
Brown v. AllenSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Harris v. RiveraSearch
-
People v. RiveraSearch
-
Nersesian v. SmithSearch
-
Terry v. HendersonSearch
-
United States v. MayburySearch
-
See United States v. WilsonSearch
-
In United States v. Duz-MorSearch
-
United States v. WestSearch
-
See Connecticut Board of Pardons v. DumschatSearch
-
Cf. Hartzell v. UnitedSearch
-
Standefer v. UnitedSearch
-
Steckler v. UnitedSearch
-
Horning v. DistrictSearch
-
In Henderson v. KibbeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial