Legal Opinion

United States v. Pierre Dawson and Alphonso Ingram

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided January 17, 2006No. 04-2557, 04-2592PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

The government has moved for rehearing, complaining about the following passage in our opinion of September 28 and more particularly about the sentence in that passage that we have italicized:

In suppression hearings in two previous cases, involving other defendants, the trial judges had disbelieved testimony by three government agents who also testified for the prosecution in our case. Defense counsel in our case wanted to use those judges’ rulings to impeach the three witnesses’ testimony. The judge refused on the basis of Rule 608(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Tome v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  2. United States v. Vincent R. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
  3. United States v. Pierre Dawson and Alphonso IngramCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2005
  4. United States v. Vincent R. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
  5. United States v. Gerald F. WhitmoreCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2004

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Daniel v. Cook CountyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2016
  2. Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2017
  3. United States v. Jakeffe HoltCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
  4. United States v. Daniel DvorkinCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
  5. United States v. JeanpierreCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API