U.S.A. v. Dhinsa, Docket No. 99-1682
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | MESKILL; CALABRESI |
| Citation | 243 F.3d 635 |
| Parties | (2nd Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. GURMEET SINGH DHINSA, Defendant-Appellant |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 99-1682 |
| Decision Date | 01 August 2000 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
297 practice notes
-
Ware v. Harry, Case No. 06-CV-10553-DT.
...in connection with any particular proceeding, or that a formal charge have been filed. See Gray, 405 F.3d at 241; United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 652 (2d Cir.2001); State v. Ivy, 188 S.W.3d 132, 147 (Tenn.2006). While petitioner may offer a plausible alternative interpretation of the......
-
Grayton v. Ercole, Docket No. 10–1419.
...right to cross examine a witness, a “ ‘fundamental right essential to a fair trial in a criminal prosecution.’ ” United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 651 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). “The opportunity for cross-examinati......
-
State v. Henry, No. 23067.
...parties' arguments focused primarily on two cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 897, 122 S.Ct. 219, 151 L.Ed.2d 156 (2001), and United States v. Mastrangelo, 693 F.2d 269 (2d Cir.1982),......
-
State v. Sanseverino, No. 17786.
...a modification unless the jury has been instructed on the lesser included offense.16 See, e.g., United [969 A.2d 721 States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 675-76 (2d Cir.) (remand for 291 Conn. 595 modification of judgment to reflect lesser included offense permissible only if jury had been instr......
Request a trial to view additional results
297 cases
-
Ware v. Harry, Case No. 06-CV-10553-DT.
...in connection with any particular proceeding, or that a formal charge have been filed. See Gray, 405 F.3d at 241; United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 652 (2d Cir.2001); State v. Ivy, 188 S.W.3d 132, 147 (Tenn.2006). While petitioner may offer a plausible alternative interpretation of the......
-
Grayton v. Ercole, Docket No. 10–1419.
...right to cross examine a witness, a “ ‘fundamental right essential to a fair trial in a criminal prosecution.’ ” United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 651 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). “The opportunity for cross-examinati......
-
State v. Henry, No. 23067.
...parties' arguments focused primarily on two cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 897, 122 S.Ct. 219, 151 L.Ed.2d 156 (2001), and United States v. Mastrangelo, 693 F.2d 269 (2d Cir.1982),......
-
State v. Sanseverino, No. 17786.
...a modification unless the jury has been instructed on the lesser included offense.16 See, e.g., United [969 A.2d 721 States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 675-76 (2d Cir.) (remand for 291 Conn. 595 modification of judgment to reflect lesser included offense permissible only if jury had been instr......
Request a trial to view additional results