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.
§

Margoles v. United States

407 F.2d 727 (7th Cir. 1969)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Margoles v. United States

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Peters

    791 F.2d 1270 (7th Cir. 1986)   Cited 139 times
    Holding that " court in its discretion may defer a determination of a pretrial venue motion until after the voir dire of the prospective jurors when the effects of pretrial publicity can be fully assessed"

    Sequestration and control of news coverage are appropriate to control "gross abuses of the news media in the guise of `freedom of the press.'" Margoles v. United States, 407 F.2d 727, 733 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 833, 90 S.Ct. 89, 24 L.Ed.2d 84 (1969). The trial judge was fully aware of the publicity surrounding the trial, but he was also aware of the substantial hardship that sequestering a jury for an estimated four to six weeks of trial could impose.

  2. United States v. Liddy

    509 F.2d 428 (D.C. Cir. 1974)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that the federal trial judge has "inherent authority" to call or recall and question witnesses when he or she "believes the additional testimony will be helpful to the jurors in ascertaining the truth and discharging their fact-finding function"

    The Seventh Circuit had also rejected the proposition that individual questioning on voir dire is necessary whenever there has been significant pretrial publicity. Margoles v. United States, 407 F.2d 727 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 833, 90 S.Ct. 89, 24 L.Ed.2d 84 (1969). Indeed, the court expressed doubt that individual questioning afforded greater protection than mass examination.

  3. In re Nat. Broadcasting Co., Inc.

    653 F.2d 609 (D.C. Cir. 1981)   Cited 102 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the “fact that the tapes were admitted into evidence and played to the jury weighs heavily” as first, “trial is a public event, and what transpires in the court room is public property. Second, the tapes had been seen and heard by those members of the press and public who attended the trial. Our cases have recognized that such previous access is a factor which lends support to subsequent access.”

    See United States v. Burr, 25 Fed.Cas. 49, 51 (Cas. No. 14,692) (1807) (Marshall, C. J.).See e.g. Haldeman, supra, 559 F.2d at 64-71; Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184, 203-212 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 1505, 47 L.Ed.2d 760 (1976); Margoles v. United States, 407 F.2d 727, 730 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 396 U.S. 833, 90 S.Ct. 89, 24 L.Ed.2d 84 (1969). In the event voir dire reveals insurmountable prejudice, of course, additional measures exist, such as the granting of a continuance or a change of venue, to protect the rights of the defendants.

  4. United States v. Crowell

    586 F.2d 1020 (4th Cir. 1978)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that mere speculation by counsel is not adequate to establish that material was exculpatory under Brady

    United States v. Hankish, 502 F.2d 71, at 77. (Quoting from Margoles v. United States, 407 F.2d 727, 735 (7 Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 833, 90 S.Ct. 89, 24 L.Ed.2d 84 (1969)). If, on the other hand, some members have been exposed to the prejudicial material, the district court must then determine the extent and effect of the infection and act to ensure a fair trial.