Citation network
Old Chief Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 07, 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
-
Old Chief v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 519 U.S. 172 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Old Chief V. UnitedSearch
-
standard of review applicable to the evidentiary rulings of the district court is abuse of discretion. United States v. AbelSearch
-
government is entitled to prove a prior felony offense through introduction of probative evidence. See United States v. BreitkreutzSearch
-
F.3d 688 , 690 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. GilmanSearch
-
to exclude evidence of the names and natures of prior offenses in cases like this. Compare, e. g., United States v. BurkhartSearch
-
United States v. SmithSearch
-
and United States v. BreitkreutzSearch
-
to refuse an offered stipulation and proceed with its own evidence of the prior offense), with United States v. TavaresSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. PooreSearch
-
United States v. WackerSearch
-
and United States v. JonesSearch
-
United States v. MocciaSearch
-
a probability of his guilt. Not that the law invests the defendant with a presumption of good character, Greer v. UnitedSearch
-
Mi chelson v. UnitedSearch
-
from its perspective when it had to rule and not indulge in review by hindsight. See, for example, United States v. O'SheaSearch
-
the case as 187 the Government chooses to present it. The authority usually cited for this rule is Parr v. UnitedSearch
-
be morally reasonable as much as to point to the discrete elements of a defendant's legal fault. Cf. United States v. GilliamSearch
-
someone accused of crime need not explain the evidence or avow innocence beyond making his plea. See, e. g., Lakeside v. OregonSearch
-
see, e. g., United States v. MunozSearch
-
prejudice-not of prejudice alone''') (citations omitted), cert. denied sub nom. Martinez v. UnitedSearch
-
Dollar v. LongSearch
-
Brief for United States 32. The jury is presumed to have followed this cautionary instruction, see Shannon v. UnitedSearch
-
possession was illegal, given the 199 tradition of lawful gun ownership in this country, see Staples v. UnitedSearch
-
F.3d 957 , 960 (1993) (quoting United States v. CollamoreSearch
-
Singer v. UnitedSearch
-
the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime of which he is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. GaudinSearch
-
U. S. 506 , 510 (1995) (citing Sullivan v. LouisianaSearch
-
see also Court of Ulster Cty. v. AllenSearch
-
Mathews v. UnitedSearch
-
to contest an essential element of the crime does not remove the prosecution's burden to prove that element. Estelle v. McGuireSearch
-
Syllabus Old Chief V. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. BreitkreutzSearch
-
United States v. BurkhartSearch
-
United States v. TavaresSearch
-
Greer v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. O'SheaSearch
-
Parr v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. United States v. GilliamSearch
-
United States v. MunozSearch
-
Martinez v. UnitedSearch
-
Shannon v. UnitedSearch
-
Staples v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. CollamoreSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial