Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

United States v. Solomon Philip Panitz, United States of America v. Andrew Stewart Baumwald

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided July 13, 1990No. 90-1081, 90-1082PublishedCited by 126 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SELYA, Circuit Judge.

Stung by a sting, defendants Solomon Philip Panitz and Andrew Stewart Baum-wald received little balm from the United States District Court for the District of Maine. After that court denied various pretrial motions, each defendant pled guilty, conditionally, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), and then appealed. Finding no prescription for the soothing unguent of reversal, we affirm the judgments below.

I. BACKGROUND

We set forth the general background of the sting and then particularize appellants’ involvement, mindful that the essential facts are not seriously disputed.

A. The…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Franks v. DelawareSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  3. United States v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. United States v. Ilario M.A. ZanninoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
  5. United States v. RabinowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1950

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

3Cited by126 opinions

  1. United States v. GinnCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997
  2. United States v. John VoigtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
  3. United States v. McGillCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
  4. United States v. Osvaldo Rodriguez-MoralesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991
  5. Knight v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API