Web Results

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart_(2003)

United States v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2003) and 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006), is a Ninth Circuit case involving a challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution . The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found against the ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_v._United_States_(1961)

Stewart v. United States, 366 U.S. 1 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that asking a criminal defendant whether he had testified in previous trials violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Willie Lee Stewart had already been tried twice for murder and had not testified in either trial. During his ...

www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-v-arizona

California v. Stewart: In the course of investigating a series of purse-snatch robberies in which one of the victims died of injuries inflicted by her assailant, Stewart was identified as the endorser of checks stolen in one of the robberies. Steward was arrested at his home. Police also arrested Stewart's wife and three other ...

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1173761.html

Nov 13, 2003 ... Case opinion for US 9th Circuit UNITED STATES v. STEWART. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/mstewart/usmspb10504sind.html

COUNT ONE. (Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, Make False Statements, and Commit Perjury). The Grand Jury Charges: Background. 1. At all times relevant to this Indictment, MARTHA STEWART, the defendant, was chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1066381.html

Jan 6, 2006 ... Case opinion for US 2nd Circuit UNITED STATES v. STEWART. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

openjurist.org/101/f3d/1392/this-summary/2

101 F.3d 1392. Vanessa STEWART, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Terry Mark Rich and Alicia D. Smith, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-6024. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. July 11, 1996. NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT ...

www.leagle.com/decision/2004743317fsupp2d4261700.xml

May 5, 2004 ... Hartridge's comments are irrelevant to this inquiry and do not demonstrate bias. See United States v. Stewart, No. 03 Cr. 717, slip op. at 14-15 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2004). More importantly, defendants have not articulated the bias that is supposedly evident in these two pieces of extraneous information. Notably ...

www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35

Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court. A concurring opinion ...