Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

United States v. Baca

444 F.2d 1292 (10th Cir. 1971)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
United States v. Baca

21 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Provenzano

    605 F.2d 85 (3d Cir. 1979)   Cited 103 times
    Holding that " defendant's propensity to commit crime generally, even if the resulting harm would be not solely physical, may constitute sufficient risk of danger to come within contemplation of [the Bail Reform Act]"

    Even though initial processing by the trial judge is apt to make a contribution to any subsequent consideration of bail, our responsibility in the statutory scheme, as the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has asserted, "is not merely appellate but includes the duty to make an independent determination of all relevant factors."See, e. g., United States v. Baca, 444 F.2d 1292, 1296 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 404 U.S. 979, 92 S.Ct. 347, 30 L.Ed.2d 294 (1971); United States v. Sine, 461 F. Supp. 565, 568 (D.S.C. 1978); United States v. Miranda, 442 F. Supp. 786, 789 (S.D.Fla. 1977); United States v. Parr, 399 F. Supp. 883, 887 (S.D.Tex. 1975); United States v. Quicksey, 371 F. Supp. 561, 564 (S.D.W.Va. 1974).See, e. g., United States v. Baca, 444 F.2d at 1296; United States v. Porter, D.C., 297 F. Supp. 1117, 1118 (1969).

  2. Wilson v. Steinhoff

    718 F.2d 550 (2d Cir. 1983)   Cited 15 times
    In Wilson v. Steinhoff, 718 F.2d 550 (2d Cir. 1983), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that when there is a denial of a motion to suppress followed by the acquittal of the defendant, the suppression determination is considered "neither a final judgment nor an essential precursor to what was in fact the final judgment, the unappealable judgment of acquittal," and therefore was not entitled to preclusive effect.

    The dismissal as to the remaining defendants must be reversed. If plaintiff can show that these defendants conspired to use the Parole Board solely for the purpose of gathering evidence in an unrelated criminal matter, with the result that Steinhoff deliberately misstated the basis for issuance of the warrant, a jury may find that appellant's constitutional rights have been violated. See Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 226, 80 S.Ct. 683, 690, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960); United States v. Polito, 583 F.2d 48, 53 n. 6 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Baca, 444 F.2d 1292, 1295 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 979, 92 S.Ct. 347, 30 L.Ed.2d 294 (1971); and cf. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2676-77, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). A similar finding might be made if plaintiff is able to establish that he was physically abused following his apprehension.

  3. United States v. Nolan

    551 F.2d 266 (10th Cir. 1977)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that a voluntary confession obtained by British authorities, albeit without the benefit of Miranda warnings, was nevertheless admissible under Rule 404(b) because the exclusionary rule has little or no deterrent effect on alleged foreign police misconduct

    This determination is properly within the trial judge's discretion. United States v. Drumright, 534 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir. 1976), U.S. Appeal Pending; United States v. Baca, 444 F.2d 1292 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 979, 92 S.Ct. 347, 30 L.Ed.2d 294 (1971). A critical issue in the case at hand was Nolan's intent and knowledge. Proof of the British conviction was very relevant in the proof of those elements of the crime.

  4. United States v. Drumright

    534 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir. 1976)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that evidence of a previously uttered forged bill was relevant to the defendant's knowledge and intent in passing the forged bill at issue in the case

    Defendant used each bill in purchasing merchandise. The Tri-State bill was pertinent to the knowledge and intent of the defendant in passing the Duckwall's bill. The court did not abuse its discretion in receiving the Tri-State bill. United States v. Baca, 10 Cir., 444 F.2d 1292, 1294-1295, cert. denied 404 U.S. 979, 92 S.Ct. 347, 30 L.Ed.2d 294, and cases there cited. The objection to the Duckwall's bill goes to the chain of custody.

  5. Thorne v. Warden, Brooklyn House of Detention

    479 F.2d 297 (2d Cir. 1973)   Cited 76 times
    Holding "issue as to the legality of [petitioner's] continued pretrial detention [had] been mooted," because habeas petitioner under § 2241 had been convicted in state court of second degree robbery and petty larceny

    Since Thorne is now held as a convicted defendant rather than merely on a criminal charge not yet brought to trial, the issue as to the legality of his continued pretrial detention has been mooted, and it therefore becomes unnecessary to resolve the constitutional issues presented. See United States v. Baca, 444 F.2d 1292, 1296 (10th Cir. 1971). Cf. Clayton v. Stone, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 181, 358 F.2d 548 (D.C.Cir. 1966).

  6. United States v. Noah

    475 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1973)   Cited 79 times
    Holding that "[s]ince there was only one agreement there could be only one conspiracy conviction"

    Second, ample evidence was adduced during the trial to enable the jury to conclude that the narcotics purchased from Stuart were the same as the exhibits admitted into evidence. Barquera v. California, 374 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1967); United States v. Baca, 444 F.2d 1292 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 404 U.S. 979, 92 S.Ct. 347, 30 L.Ed.2d 294 (1971). 3. Entrapment instructions.

  7. United States v. Cox

    475 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1973)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that concern for defendant's Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights constituted justification for district court dismissing indictment during pendency of government appeal of suppression order

    Hence, Agnew offers the government nothing of merit. The United States also relies upon Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 80 S.Ct. 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960) and United States v. Baca, 444 F.2d 1292 (10th Cir. 1971) to establish that when officers act in good faith and in so doing make a reasonable mistake, their misunderstanding is excused to the extent that the search is held nonviolative. Abel and Baca were, however, both premised on specific findings of the respective district courts, that the agents had not acted in bad faith and that the warrant had in the regular course of events been issued in good faith.

  8. United States v. Stanley

    469 F.2d 576 (D.C. Cir. 1972)   Cited 32 times
    Acknowledging that remand encroaches on defendant's right to a speedy resolution of the bail issue

    pra note 17, 139 U.S.App.D.C. at 337-338, 433 F.2d at 495-496. See also United States v. Long, supra note 29, 137 U.S.App.D.C. at 276-277, 422 F.2d at 713-714; United States v. Jackson, supra note 14, 135 U.S.App.D.C. at 208, 209-210, 417 F.2d at 1155, 1156-1157; Banks v. United States, supra note 13, 134 U.S.App.D.C. at 257, 414 F.2d at 1153; United States v. Leathers, supra note 17, 134 U.S.App.D.C. at 41-42, 412 F.2d at 172-173; Chapman v. United States, supra note 18, 133 U.S.App.D.C. at 74, 75, 408 F.2d at 1277, 1278; United States v. Blyther, supra note 29; United States v. Harrison, supra note 14, 131 U.S.App.D.C. at 392, 405 F.2d at 357; Weaver v. United States, supra note 15; Byrd v. United States, supra note 15; McCoy v. United States, supra note 47, 123 U.S.App.D.C. at 82, 357 F.2d at 273; Hansford v. United States, supra note 13; Hairston v. United States, supra note 24, 120 U.S.App.D.C. at 32-33, 343 F.2d at 314-315; United States v. Bennett, 444 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Baca, 444 F.2d 1292, 1296-1297 (10th Cir. 1971). I. FINDINGS OF FACT

  9. United States v. Shim

    Case No. 18-CR-149 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 13, 2020)

    Because he has been convicted, he no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence, and thus there is no constitutional 2 right to reasonable bail. See United States v. Provenzano, 602 F.Supp. 230, 232 (E.D .La. 1985) ("There is no constitutional guarantee of bail pending appeal.") (citing United States v. Baca, 444 F.2d 1292 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 979 (1971)). The statute governing release or detention pending sentence or appeal under the circumstances of this case mandates detention "unless

  10. United States v. Streett

    437 F. Supp. 3d 940 (D.N.M. 2020)   Cited 3 times
    Rejecting government request to prohibit detained defendant awaiting sentencing for sexual misconduct offenses from possessing pictures of his minor victims after defendant asked a friend to access one of his victims' social media pages and send him a picture of her; the court held in lacked inherent authority to issue such a condition since the defendant had “not threatened any proceedings before the Court, interfered with a witness, or flouted any of the Court's orders”; the court noted it had already imposed a no-contact order on the detained defendant but did not address its authority to do so

    18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) (bold in original). Before Congress enacted the Bail Reform Act, post-conviction, pre-sentence bail rested entirely within courts' discretion. See United States v. Baca, 444 F.2d 1292, 1296 (10th Cir. 1971) ("[T]he language of 18 U.S.C. 3148 makes it clear that whether a convicted person is released on bail rests in the trial court's discretion."). Today, § 3143 sharply curtails that discretion.