Joe Smith v. United States, 392 F.2d 169 (5th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Joe Smith v. United States, 392 F.2d 169 (5th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ikner v. State (alacrimapp, 1992-02-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ikner v. State
Ala. Crim. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Although these are not the only methods by which the government may prove materiality, we have, by expressly disapproving of others, see, e.g., Cosby, 601 F.2d at 757-58 , indicated that they are the preferred ones.4 4 `[W]e have generally looked with disfavor on prosecutions brought under Section 1623 [making a false statement to a grand jury] that have not used complete transcripts or testimony of members of the grand jury.' United States v. Cosby, 601 F.2d 754, 757 (5th Cir. 1979)." United States v. Bell, 623 F.2d 1132, 1135 (5th Cir.1980). "[A] jury cannot determine whether false testimony…
cited Cited "see" In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Davenport
Or. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. United States, 392 F.2d 169, 170 (5th Cir.1968) (willfulness is essential element of perjury under 18 USC section 1621 ).
cited Cited "see" Smith v. United States
5th Cir. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F.2d 169 ; cert. denied 393 U.S. 941 , 89 S.Ct. 308 , 21 L.
cited Cited "see" Joe Smith v. United States
5th Cir. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F.2d 169 ; cert. denied 393 U.S. 941 , 89 S.Ct. 308 , 21 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joe SMITH, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
25506_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 13, 1968.
392 F.2d 169
George B. Azar, Montgomery, Ala., for appellant., Ben Hardeman, U. S. Atty., Jack B. Patterson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., for appellee.
Thornberry, Ainsworth, Dyer.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Joe Smith appeals from his perjury conviction in United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The charge arose out of events that occurred during a habeas-corpus hearing in the same district court in which appellant alleged that he was not represented by counsel when he entered a guilty plea in state court to the charges of burglary and assault with intent to murder. The judge and prosecutor in the state court testified that he was represented by counsel, and a lawyer named W. T. Starnes said that he acted as Smith’s attorney by court appointment. This testimony formed the basis[*170] for the denial of habeas relief and also for the perjury indictment that eventually led to this conviction.

Appellant’s paramount attack on his perjury conviction is that the district court erred in admitting his original petition for writ of habeas corpus and testimony given at the habeas corpus proceeding because this evidence was prejudicial and irrelevant to the perjury charge. The case of Harrell v. United States, 5 Cir. 1955, 220 F.2d 516 forecloses this contention. There this court said that willfulness is an essential element of perjury and that a jury cannot determine whether false testimony was willfully given unless it has a complete understanding of the issues on trial at the time the alleged perjury was committed. See Luse v. United States, 9th Cir. 1931, 49 F.2d 241. We have also considered appellant’s other contentions and find them equally without merit. Therefore, after careful consideration of the entire record, we are convinced that no reversible error was committed and that appellant’s perjury trial was fair.

Affirmed.