Legal Opinion

United States v. Mikell

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided September 24, 2001No. 2:97-cr-81493PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ VENUE MOTIONS; GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MATERIALITY MOTIONS; DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR MISTRIAL; DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT GRISEL’S MOTION TO REPLACE COUNSEL; DENYING AS MOOT DAVID HERRING-TON’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL; AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SEEKING RESOLUTION OF RULE 29 MOTIONS AND OTHER MATTERS

CLELAND, District Judge.

Pending before the court are the following motions by Defendants Alan Mikell and Christopher Grisel: 1 (1) “Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or in the Alternative for Arrest of Judgment (Venue)” (‘Venue Motions”), filed…

2Cases cited55 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. McNally v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Schmuck v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Toussie v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Carpenter v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. United States v. Edwin David Wood, IICourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
  2. United States v. CoffmanDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2011
  3. United States v. BlechmanDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2011
  4. United States v. Edwin David Wood, IICourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
  5. United States v. Edwin David Wood, IICourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004

3 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