Legal Opinion
United States v. Peter J. Kaufmann, Jan E. Ostermeier and William C. Cummings
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided February 13, 1986No. 85-1692, 85-1693, 85-1695 and 85-1841PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.
Defendants argue that they are entitled to a new trial because the Government’s principal witness, Agent John Holm of the Division of Criminal Investigation of the Wisconsin Department of Justice, testified falsely at trial. We remand to the district court to make the appropriate findings under the standard articulated in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), and subsequent Supreme Court cases.
The four co-defendants 1 in this case were convicted of conspiracy to purchase marijuana with intent to distribute. The government agents had…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. BagleySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Giglio v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. AgursSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Napue v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- United States v. Charles H. Kehm, Iii, and Steven M. GreenbergCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- United States v. Edward Kuzniar and George PistasCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
- Carlos J. Velarde v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- United States v. William D. LaddCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
- United States v. Peter J. Kaufmann, Jan E. Ostermeier and William C. Cummings, DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.