Skip to main content
Third Circuit· 3/31/1989

United States v. Barrett James

Citations

  • 870 F.2d 953
  • 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 3971
  • 1989 WL 28636

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • explaining that using a criminal jury’s answers to special interrogatories in order to resolve ambiguities in the general verdict “would constitute a manifest invasion of the jury’s exclusive deliberative function in arriving at a verdict”
  • distinguishing special interrogatories seeking to explain the general verdict from special interrogatories being used “to assist in sentencing”
  • “sharply contrast[ing]” use of special interrogatories “to assist in sentencing” with their impermissible use “to clarify an ambiguous verdict”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Seitz, Stapleton, Cowen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named United States v. Barrett James

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.