Citation network
Johnson Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 12, 1997
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 520 U.S. 461 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Johnson V. UnitedSearch
-
statements were material. Johnson was convicted of perjury, but before her appeal, this Court ruled, in United States v. GaudinSearch
-
rights to be noticed even though no objection has been made. Following the analysis outlined in United States v. OlanoSearch
-
of Olano is satisfied here, as Gaudin must be applied to Johnson's case on direct review. See Griffith v. KentuckySearch
-
issue of materiality in a perjury prosecution, rather than submitting it to the jury as our decision in United States v. GaudinSearch
-
At the close of Johnson's trial, and in accordance with then-extant Circuit precedent, see, e. g., United States v. MolinaresSearch
-
fine. After Johnson was convicted, but before her appeal to the Court of Appeals, we decided United States v. GaudinSearch
-
Following our analysis in United States v. OlanoSearch
-
CA111996)). Due to the conflict between this decision and the Ninth Circuit's en bane decision in United States v. KeysSearch
-
Olano, supra, at 731 (quoting Yakus v. UnitedSearch
-
system. Several came from state courts which had considered the claimed error under their own rules. See Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
U. S. 275 (1993). Others came here by way of federal habeas challenges to state convictions. See Vasquez v. HillerySearch
-
system, and therefore governs this case. We cautioned against any unwarranted expansion of Rule 52(b) in United States v. YoungSearch
-
id., at 15 (quoting United States v. FradySearch
-
the creation out of whole cloth of an exception to it, an exception which we have no authority to make. See Carlisle v. UnitedSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting United States v. YoungSearch
-
supra, at 15, in turn quoting United States v. AtkinsonSearch
-
trial occurred today, the failure to submit materiality to the jury would be error under Gaudin. Under Griffith v. KentuckySearch
-
error, we explained in Arizona v. FulminanteSearch
-
See Gideon 1 See United States v. CorsinoSearch
-
United States v. BernardSearch
-
United States v. GreberSearch
-
Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. MarshSearch
-
United States v. HausmannSearch
-
United States v. BrantleySearch
-
United States v. HicksSearch
-
United States v. DailySearch
-
United States v. HansenSearch
-
F.2d 940 , 950 (CADC 1985). 469 v. WainwrightSearch
-
to jury). It is by no means clear that the error here fits within this limited class of cases. Sullivan v. LouisianaSearch
-
case, can just as easily be analogized to improperly instructing the jury on an element of the offense, e. g., Yates v. EvattSearch
-
error analysis, as it can be to failing to give a proper reasonable-doubt instruction altogether. Cf. California v. RoySearch
-
Syllabus Johnson V. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial