Cases by Issue - Presentation or Admissibility or Sufficiency of Evidence

Old Chief v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-6556

Petitioner

Old Chief

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

519 U.S. 172 (1997)

Argued

Wednesday, October 16, 1996

Decided

Tuesday, January 7, 1997

Advocates

Miguel A. Estrada (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondent)

Daniel Donovan (Montana, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Johnny Lynn Old Chief was involved in a disturbance involving gunfire. Subsequently, Old Chief was charged with violating federal law, 18 U. S. C. Section(s) 922(g)(1), which prohibits possession of a firearm by anyone with a prior felony conviction. The earlier crime that was charged in the indictment against Old Chief was assault causing serious bodily injury. Old Chief moved for an order requiring the Government to refrain from revealing the name and nature of his prior assault conviction, which, he argued, would unfairly tax the jury's capacity to hold the Government to its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of Federal Rules of Evidence, on current charges of assault, possession, and violence with a firearm. Old Chief offered to stipulate, or concede, to the fact of the prior conviction without releasing its name or nature. The Government refused to join the stipulation. The Government argued it had the right to present its own evidence of the prior conviction. The District Court ruled in favor of the Government. In affirming the conviction, the Court of Appeals found that the Government was entitled to introduce probative evidence to prove the prior offense regardless of the stipulation offer.

Question

Does a District Court have the authority to reject a defendant's offer to conceded a prior conviction and admit the prosecution's presentation of it when the name or nature of the conviction raises the risk of a verdict tainted by improper considerations, and when the purpose of the evidence is solely to prove the element of prior conviction?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Old Chief, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Evidence

No. In an opinion authored by Justice David Souter, the Court ruled that a district court abuses its discretion under the Federal Rules of Evidence if it spurns a defendant's offer to concede a prior judgment and admits the full judgment record over the defendant's objection, when the name or nature of the prior offense raises the risk of a verdict tainted by improper considerations, and when the purpose of the evidence is solely to prove the element of prior conviction.

United States v. Dunnigan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1300

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dunnigan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 87 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1993

Advocates

Brent E. Beveridge (on behalf of the Respondent)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. App.

None

United States v. Salerno

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-872

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Salerno et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 317 (1992)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1992

Advocates

Michael E. Tigar (on behalf of the Respondent)

James A. Feldman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Evidence

None

United States v. Williams

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1972

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Williams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 36 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1992

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1992

Advocates

Kenneth W. Starr (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James C. Lang (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Carchman v. Nash

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-776

Petitioner

Carchman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nash

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 84-835

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 716 (1985)

Argued

Monday, April 22, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, July 2, 1985

Advocates

Philip S. Carchman (on behalf of the petitioners)

John Burke, III (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Carchman, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Cuyler v. Adams

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1841

Petitioner

Cuyler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Adams

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 433 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, January 21, 1981

Advocates

James D. Crawford (on behalf of the Respondent)

Maria Parisi Vickers (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Adams, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 3: Compact Clause

None

Rogers v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-6336

Petitioner

Rogers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 35 (1975)

Argued

Monday, April 14, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, June 17, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Rogers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

United States v. Pennsylvania Chem. Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-624

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennsylvania Chem. Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 655 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, March 27, 1973

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 33 U.S.C. 401

None

Humphrey v. Cady

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5004

Petitioner

Humphrey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cady

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 504 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, December 7, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Humphrey, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Haines v. Kerner

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5025

Petitioner

Haines

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kerner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

404 U.S. 519 (1972)

Argued

Monday, December 6, 1971

Decided

Thursday, January 13, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Haines, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Sanders v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

202

Petitioner

Sanders

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

373 U.S. 1 (1963)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1963

Decided

Monday, April 29, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Sanders, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Bushnell v. Ellis

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

561

Petitioner

Bushnell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ellis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

366 U.S. 418 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, May 2, 1961

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Bushnell, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

None

Stirone v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Stirone

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

361 U.S. 212 (1960)

Argued

November 9-10, 1959

Decided

Monday, January 11, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Stirone, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Lee Kum Hoy v. Murff

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Lee Kum Hoy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Murff

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

355 U.S. 169 (1957)

Argued

Thursday, November 21, 1957

Decided

Monday, December 9, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lee Kum Hoy, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shotwell Mfg. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

355 U.S. 233 (1957)

Argued

Thursday, October 17, 1957

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None