17 Cited authorities

  1. U.S. v. Webster

    162 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 1998)   Cited 245 times
    Holding that once a district court has reached the second step of the Batson analysis, "we no longer examine whether a prima facie case exists"
  2. U.S. v. Thomas

    116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 236 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing a juror during deliberations where the record "raises the possibility that the juror was attempting to follow the law as instructed, but that he simply remained unpersuaded of the defendants' guilt"
  3. U.S. v. Symington

    195 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding district court erred in dismissing juror when record showed reasonable possibility that juror's view of merits of case were basis of removal
  4. Esquivel v. U.S.

    519 U.S. 985 (1996)   Cited 36 times

    No. 96-6256. November 12, 1996. C.A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 88 F. 3d 722.

  5. U.S. v. Brown

    823 F.2d 591 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 131 times
    Holding that the district court's dismissal of a juror after five weeks of deliberations violated the defendant's right to a unanimous jury, because the record evidence suggested the juror found the evidence insufficient for a conviction
  6. U.S. v. Abbell

    271 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 74 times
    Adopting a variation of the Brown rule but focusing on the evidence of misconduct that the district court discovered during its investigation
  7. U.S. v. Huntress

    956 F.2d 1309 (5th Cir. 1992)   Cited 81 times
    Holding that failure to make the proper objection to violation of juror rules leads to review for prejudice in the substitution
  8. U.S. v. Reese

    33 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 1994)   Cited 68 times
    Finding the question of whether or not to hold a hearing prior to a juror's excusal to be "within the trial judge's sound discretion" and finding that no hearing was required
  9. United States v. Donato

    99 F.3d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1996)   Cited 55 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Rule 24(c) error "will be considered harmless so long as we can say with fair assurance . . . that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error"
  10. U.S. v. Breen

    243 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that top-end of Guidelines range not statutory maximum for purposes of Apprendi analysis