The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
061904npo1-pdf•United States of America v. Terrance Larnell Cole
061904npo1-pdfCourt of Appeals for the Third CircuitMar 9, 2010
Honorable Norma L. Shapiro, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the*
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-1904
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
TERRANCE LARNELL COLE,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 04-cr-109)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Hardiman
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 10, 2007
Before: RENDELL and AMBRO, Circuit Judges,
and SHAPIRO, District Judge*
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
-- 1 of 2 --
It is hereby ORDERED that the Not Precedential Opinion filed in the within matter on
August 31, 2007 is AMENDED as follows:
On page 6, delete the following sentence:
There is the government’s memorandum in support of its motion
(App. 326-332) and the statements the District Court made in open
court concerning the matter (Supp. App. 978).
and replace it with the following language:
There is the government’s memorandum in support of its motion
(App. 326-332) and the statements the District Court made
concerning the matter.
On page 8, delete the following sentences:
The District Court announced in open court in his presence the
plan to impanel the jury anonymously before voir dire began. With
notice, Cole failed to object.
and replace it with the following language:
The anonymous jury was selected in Cole’s presence, and the
judge’s discussion of the voir dire made clear the jurors were to
answer only by number (Tr. 8/15/05, p. 8); Cole must have realized
what was going on and could have objected then or later as he was
present for the discussion of an anonymous jury when Juror 197
was excused but Juror 16 was not (Tr. 8/17/05, p. 6).
For the convenience of the parties, a final copy of the amended opinion is attached to this order.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Marjorie O. Rendell
Dated: March 9, 2010
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.