Legal Opinion

United States v. Handley

District Court, N.D. Alabama

Decided September 8, 1986No. CR 84-AR-104-NEPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ACKER, District Judge.

The nine defendants in the above entitled cause have separately presented the following motions:

(1.) Renewed motion to suppress each civil deposition in CV 80-HM-1449-S taken of a defendant in this case, based on allegedly newly discovered evidence showing that the sole purpose of the civil action was to obtain evidence for the criminal case. The motions by defendants Mason and White are first-time motions.

(2.) Motion to suppress each civil deposition in CV 80-HM-1449-S, based on the allegation that each said deposition was not voluntary but rather…

2Cases cited67 opinions

  1. Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. United States v. AgursSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Jackson v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. WhiteCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
  2. People v. RunningbearSupreme Court of Colorado · 1988
  3. United States v. CreekmoreDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1986
  4. United States v. TuckerDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1986
  5. United States v. Lenwood Lewis White, United States of America v. Terry Joe Tucker, United States of America v. William Johnny Mason, Roger David Handley, David Lee Kelso, and Ray Winford Steele, United States of America v. William David Riccio, United States of America v. Ricky Lynn Creekmore, United States of America v. David Lee KelsoCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API