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. Darwin

757 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir. 1985)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
United States v. Darwin

33 Citing cases

  1. Wesbrook v. State

    29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)   Cited 2,362 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a jury is free to accept or reject any and all of the evidence presented by either side

    When Moulton raised the possibility of killing a government witness, he may well have been proposing a future crime, but that evidence was obtained before Colson became a government agent and was not the focus of the opinion in Moulton.United States v. Moschiano, 695 F.2d 236, 240-243 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 831 (1983); United States v. Darwin, 757 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1110 (1986). A similar holding occurred in Grieco v. Meachum, 533 F.2d 713, 717-718 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 (1976), but the First Circuit subsequently held that Grieco had been overruled by Moulton.

  2. Thompson v. State

    93 S.W.3d 16 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that defendant's conduct was not "clearly insufficient" to cause victim's death in light of evidence showing that without medical intervention, injuries inflicted by defendant could have been fatal

    When Moulton raised the possibility of killing a government witness, he may well have been proposing a future crime, but that evidence was obtained before the informant became a government agent and was not the focus of the opinion in Moulton.United States v. Moschiano, 695 F.2d 236, 240-243 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 831 (1983); United States v. Darwin, 757 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1110 (1986). A similar holding occurred in Grieco v. Meachum, 533 F.2d 713, 717-718 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 (1976), but the First Circuit subsequently held that Grieco had been overruled by Moulton. Bender, 221 F.3d 265, 269 n. 4 (1st. Cir. 2000).

  3. U.S. v. Beale

    921 F.2d 1412 (11th Cir. 1991)   Cited 174 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding erroneous admission of evidence not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the only other evidence against defendant was the uncorroborated testimony of a cooperating witness of "questionable credibility"

    A Brady violation can also occur if the prosecution delays in transmitting evidence during a trial, but only if the defendant can show prejudice, e.g., the material came so late that it could not be effectively used. United States v. Darwin, 757 F.2d 1193, 1201 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1110, 106 S.Ct. 896, 88 L.Ed.2d 930 (1986). "Suppressed evidence useful only for impeachment purposes is material if its disclosure probably would have resulted in acquittal."

  4. Maine v. Moulton

    474 U.S. 159 (1985)   Cited 1,158 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state's use of informant to obtain incriminating evidence from defendant about pending charges violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, notwithstanding that state was also investigating other charges as to which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached

    Accordingly, evidence obtained through a separate crimes investigation should be admitted only "so long as investigating officers show no bad faith and do not institute the investigation of the separate offense as a pretext for avoiding the dictates of Massiah." United States v. Darwin, 757 F.2d 1193, 1199 (CA11 1985). Here the careful actions of Chief Keating and Detective Kelley steered well clear of these prohibitions.

  5. U.S. v. Cohen

    888 F.2d 770 (11th Cir. 1989)   Cited 65 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court should have admitted prior bad acts evidence under Rule 404(b) because it tended to show that the government witness could have executed the fraudulent scheme without the defendants' participation

    Absent an abuse of discretion, evidentiary rulings of the trial court will stand. United States v. Williams, 875 F.2d 846, 852 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. Darwin, 757 F.2d 1193, 1202 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Russell, 703 F.2d 1243, 1249 (11th Cir. 1983). When the credibility of a co-defendant witness has been attacked, the prosecution may offer evidence of that witness's plea agreement.

  6. State v. Caughron

    855 S.W.2d 526 (Tenn. 1993)   Cited 340 times
    Holding that testimony that a witness was "having trouble in school and crying a lot" was relevant as it tended "to bolster [the witness's] credibility"

    See also United States v. McCrary, 699 F.2d 1308 (11th Cir. 1983). In United States v. Darwin, 757 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir. 1985), the Eleventh Circuit faced a situation in which the government had disclosed impeachment evidence after a witness had testified. Noting the conclusions of the Seventh, Tenth, Third and Eighth Circuits, that court held that "[t]he point in the trial when a disclosure is made . . . is not in itself determinative. . . .

  7. Read v. Virginia State Bar

    233 Va. 560 (Va. 1987)   Cited 27 times
    Concluding "Brady is not violated when Brady material is available to defendants during trial"

    Defense counsel knew of Sils' change in testimony in sufficient time to make use of his testimony at trial. In United States v. Darwin, 757 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir. 1985), the defendant complained that Brady was violated because the government failed to reveal certain information about a witness until after the witness had testified even though the government had been aware of the information for four days prior to disclosure. The Eleventh Circuit rejected the Brady claim:

  8. Tuma v. Commonwealth

    60 Va. App. 273 (Va. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    It does not matter that the prosecutor was or should have been “aware of the information” prior to trial. Read, 233 Va. at 564, 357 S.E.2d at 546 (citing United States v. Darwin, 757 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir.1985)). Nor does it matter if the defendant must recall a witness for the purpose of impeachment:

  9. U.S. v. Frazier

    387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,555 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under the abuse-of-discretion standard, "we must affirm unless . . . the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong legal standard"

    Any claimed error was harmless. See, e.g., United States v. Darwin, 757 F.2d 1193, 1204 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Vesey, 338 F.3d 913, 918 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Smith, 736 F.2d 1103, 1108 (6th Cir. 1984). IV.

  10. U.S. v. Melgar

    139 F.3d 1005 (4th Cir. 1998)   Cited 29 times
    Holding "government investigations of new criminal activity for which an accused has not yet been indicted do not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel"

    "So long as investigating officers show[ed] no bad faith and d[id] not institute the investigation of the separate offense as a pretext for avoiding the dictates of Massiah," such evidence was held admissible at trial of the original crime. United States v. Darwin, 757 F.2d 1193, 1199 (11th Cir. 1985). Over a vigorous dissent, the Moulton Court expressly rejected this standard: