Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Homer Lee Tucker

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 29, 1993No. 87-5090Published

1Concurrence

WILLIAM A. NORRIS,

concurring:

The majority holds that we may not use the supervisory power of the federal judiciary to remedy extreme appellate delay without a showing of trial prejudice. I write separately because, without analysis, the majority unnecessarily diminishes the supervisory power of the federal judiciary by accepting United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983), as controlling authority even though this is a case of appellate delay rather than trial error. In so doing, the majority effectively forecloses the use of supervisory power by the federal…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. McNabb v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  3. United States v. HastingSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. United States v. Juan Rubio-VillarealCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
  5. United States v. Jeffery AntoineCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990

1 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