United States v. Luther Lee Lanham
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
SIMPSON, Circuit Judge:
Pursuant to new Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the Clerk to place the ease on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I.
The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether the trial judge improperly injected himself into the trial below as a prosecutor in such manner and to such extent as to deny the appellant a fair and impartial trial. We agree with the appellant…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bollenbach v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Patricia Lebouef Murphy, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward Fontenot, Deceased, Etc. v. Houma Well Service, and Eva C. Fontenot, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- Starr v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Gomila v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1944
- Adler v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Blue v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2000
- David R. Ruiz, United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee v. W. J. Estelle, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982
- Bobby Lee Moore v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- West v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1988
- United States v. Darryl Gordon Hickman and Fred McArthur HeadCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.