§Why CasetextPricing

USA v. Giraudo et al

Memorandum In Opposition Defendants' Response to Government's Brief Regarding Use of Stationary Audio Recordings

16 Cited authorities

  1. Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership

    507 U.S. 380 (1993)   Cited 7,980 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys

  2. Alderman v. United States

    394 U.S. 165 (1968)   Cited 2,342 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the victim of a warrantless search may object to the use of its fruits "not because he had any interest in the seized items as 'effects' protected by the Fourth Amendment, but because they were the fruits of an unauthorized search of his house, which is itself expressly protected by the Fourth Amendment"

  3. United States v. Ceccolini

    435 U.S. 268 (1978)   Cited 548 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding a police officer's illegal search of an envelope at defendant's store and store clerk's testimony as to defendant's activities sufficiently attenuated to dissipate the connection between the two where a substantial period of time had elapsed between the two events and the clerk's testimony was an act of her own free will

  4. Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co.

    431 F.3d 353 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 514 times
    Holding that the elements of a civil RICO claim include causal injury to a plaintiff's "business or property"

  5. United States v. Shetler

    665 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 93 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Miranda warnings "are insufficient to ‘purge the taint of a temporally proximate prior illegal’ act"

  6. U.S. v. Davis

    332 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 109 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even a person who lives in the same dwelling does not have unlimited authority to consent to a search of the premises

  7. United States v. Polizzi

    500 F.2d 856 (9th Cir. 1974)   Cited 226 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant's residence and location of defense witnesses are factors to be considered but are not controlling in the Rule 21(b) analysis

  8. U.S. v. Ramirez-Sandoval

    872 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 113 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the core inquiry is whether the police would have discovered the evidence if the misconduct had not occurred"

  9. United States v. Seale

    461 F.2d 345 (7th Cir. 1972)   Cited 181 times
    Holding that, where the district court was put on notice that the defendant was dissatisfied with all counsel but one who was hospitalized, and the defendant had relieved all other attorneys and decided to represent himself pro se in the absence of the hospitalized counsel, the district court was under an obligation to inquire into the subject, and its failure to do so constituted an abuse of discretion

  10. United States v. Leonardi

    623 F.2d 746 (2d Cir. 1980)   Cited 96 times
    Holding that evidence was properly excluded because "[it] did not necessarily contradict [the witness's] testimony at trial"