Legal Opinion
United States v. Nicholas Gonzales-Flores
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided December 4, 2012No. 11-4926PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
In this ease, we must decide whether Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a defendant be present at a pretrial hearing where the district court determines whether the government violated its discovery obligations and, if so, how to remedy the violation. After counsel for defendant Nicholas Gonzales-Flores filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence as a sanction for the government’s alleged discovery violation, the district court denied the motion at a hearing that Gonzales-Flores did not attend and in which he did not…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- United States v. YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Kentucky v. StincerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. GagnonSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- United States v. Kevin FuertesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2015
- United States v. Michael WoodsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2013
- United States v. Joe ReyesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- United States v. Duane EhmerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2023
- United States v. Donald Ferguson, IICourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.