In the Matter of Marinho

17 Cited authorities

Pinkerton v. United States
328 U.S. 640 (1946) Cited 2,766 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding one conspirator may be found guilty of foreseeable substantive offenses committed by his coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy
Yates v. United States
354 U.S. 298 (1957) Cited 957 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a conviction must be reversed if the evidence in the record supports a legally impermissible ground as well as a legally permissible one and "it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected"
Lutwak v. United States
344 U.S. 604 (1953) Cited 933 times 3 Legal Analyses
Distinguishing between an actual “agreement to conceal” and “an afterthought by the conspirator for the purpose of covering up”
Bridges v. Wixon
326 U.S. 135 (1945) Cited 466 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding only that a court may not admit hearsay for substantive, as opposed to impeachment, purposes
Tait v. Western Maryland Railway Co.
289 U.S. 620 (1933) Cited 299 times
In Tait v. Western Maryland Railway, 289 U.S. 620, 53 S.Ct. 706, (1933), the plaintiff taxpayer had won a previous action against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Court held that the defendant tax collector in Tait was bound by the prior judgment as a privy to the Commissioner, because the tax collector was an official acting under the government and the Commissioner.
Southern Pacific Railr'd v. United States
168 U.S. 1 (1897) Cited 728 times 2 Legal Analyses
Noting that the "general rule" of issue preclusion "is demanded by the very object for which civil courts have been established"
Cromwell v. County of Sac
94 U.S. 351 (1876) Cited 1,575 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding for the purpose of res judicata that, because the two suits involved separate contracts, a prior suit for recovery of coupons attached to bonds did not involve the same claim as a later suit for recovery of later maturing coupons attached to the same bonds
Russell v. Place
94 U.S. 606 (1876) Cited 238 times
Recognizing that estoppel "must 'be certain to every intent'; and if upon the fact of a record any thing is left to conjecture as to what was necessarily involved and decided, there is no estoppel in it when pleaded, and nothing conclusive in it when offered as evidence."
United States v. Accardo
113 F. Supp. 783 (D.N.J. 1953) Cited 41 times
In United States v. Accardo, 113 F. Supp. 783 (D.N.J.), affirmed and adopted in 208 F.2d 632 (3d Cir.), the question was given extensive consideration where a plea of guilty to a felony was applied by estoppel in a proceeding to revoke defendant's naturalization.
United States v. Rangel-Perez
179 F. Supp. 619 (S.D. Cal. 1959) Cited 25 times
In Rangel-Perez, the court recognized that the majority of the courts "lean toward acceptance of the view that the doctrine of collateral estoppel, while available to the accused against the Government is not available to the prosecutor in Federal criminal cases".
Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal
8 U.S.C. § 1252 Cited 43,277 times 37 Legal Analyses
Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"
Section 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
18 U.S.C. § 371 Cited 21,903 times 143 Legal Analyses
Requiring proof of an "act to effect the object of the conspiracy"
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,912 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 1251 - Transferred
8 U.S.C. § 1251 Cited 2,159 times 1 Legal Analyses
Delineating crimes that make alien deportable
Section 1325 - Improper entry by alien
8 U.S.C. § 1325 Cited 1,345 times 12 Legal Analyses
Penalizing improper entry into U.S. by virtue of willful false statement of material fact
Section 1546 - Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents
18 U.S.C. § 1546 Cited 1,281 times 15 Legal Analyses
Penalizing false statement in immigration documents

In the Matter of Marinho

17 Cited authorities

Holding one conspirator may be found guilty of foreseeable substantive offenses committed by his coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy

Holding that a conviction must be reversed if the evidence in the record supports a legally impermissible ground as well as a legally permissible one and "it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected"

Distinguishing between an actual “agreement to conceal” and “an afterthought by the conspirator for the purpose of covering up”

Holding only that a court may not admit hearsay for substantive, as opposed to impeachment, purposes

Noting that the "general rule" of issue preclusion "is demanded by the very object for which civil courts have been established"

Holding for the purpose of res judicata that, because the two suits involved separate contracts, a prior suit for recovery of coupons attached to bonds did not involve the same claim as a later suit for recovery of later maturing coupons attached to the same bonds

Recognizing that estoppel "must 'be certain to every intent'; and if upon the fact of a record any thing is left to conjecture as to what was necessarily involved and decided, there is no estoppel in it when pleaded, and nothing conclusive in it when offered as evidence."

In United States v. Accardo, 113 F. Supp. 783 (D.N.J.), affirmed and adopted in 208 F.2d 632 (3d Cir.), the question was given extensive consideration where a plea of guilty to a felony was applied by estoppel in a proceeding to revoke defendant's naturalization.

In Rangel-Perez, the court recognized that the majority of the courts "lean toward acceptance of the view that the doctrine of collateral estoppel, while available to the accused against the Government is not available to the prosecutor in Federal criminal cases".

Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"

Requiring proof of an "act to effect the object of the conspiracy"

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

Delineating crimes that make alien deportable

Penalizing improper entry into U.S. by virtue of willful false statement of material fact

Penalizing false statement in immigration documents