At page 1299 cited at this page12 citing cases
- United States v. H. David Miller, United States of Am. v. Cont'l Fuel Co., Inc., United States of Am. v. Don A. Bliesner, 771 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1985).publishedThe Jencks Act is, by its terms, applicable only to writings which are signed or adopted by a witness and to accounts which are substantially verbatim recitals of a witness’ oral statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (e); see United States v. Augen…
- United States v. James Douglas Griffin, 659 F.2d 932 (9th Cir. 1982).publishedThe Congressional policy behind the Jencks Act was to protect witnesses from being impeached with words that are not their own, or are an incomplete version of their testimony." Id. at 606 (emphasis added), citing Palermo v. United States,…
- United States v. John Leon Spencer, 618 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1980).publishedUnited States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 354-356 , 89 S.Ct. 528, 532-533 , 21 L.Ed.2d 537 (1969); Wilke v. United States, 422 F.2d 1298, 1299 (9th Cir. 1970).
- Moore v. United States, 353 A.2d 16 (D.C. 1976).published See, e. g., United States v. Atkinson, 513 F.2d 38, 41-42 (4th Cir. 1975); United States v. Curry, 512 F.2d 1299, 1306-97 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 832 , 96 S.Ct. 55 , 46 L.Ed.2d 50 (1975); United States v. Hurst, 510 F.2d 1035, 1…
- United States v. Kevin Harrison, United States of Am. v. Isaac Pendergrast, United States of Am. v. Juan Gordon, 524 F.2d 421 (D.C. Cir. 1975).publishedSee, e.g., United States v. Hurst, 510 F.2d 1035, 1036 (6th Cir. 1975); United States v. Stephens, 492 F.2d 1367, 1377 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 852 & 874, 95 S.Ct. 93 , 42 L.Ed.2d 83 (1974); United States v. Pacheco, 489 F.2d 554…
- United States v. Robert Thomas Burke, 506 F.2d 1165 (9th Cir. 1975).published“The Act, in terms, is restricted to writings signed or adopted by a witness and to ac *1168 counts which are ‘a substantial verbatim recital’ of a witness’s oral statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (e); United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348…
- United States v. Lincoln Calvert McSweaney, 507 F.2d 298 (9th Cir. 1974).publishedUnder the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (e), the government is required to produce “writings signed or adopted by a witness and . . . accounts which are ‘a substantially verbatim recital’ of a witness’s oral statements.” Wilke v. United Sta…
- United States v. Michael Santo Polizzi, United States of Am. v. Jack S. Shapiro, United States of Am. v. Peter James Bellanca, United States of Am. v. Anthony Giardano, United States of Am. v. Arthur J. Rooks, United States of Am. v. Anthony Joseph Zerilli, United States of Am. v. Emprise Corp., a New York Corp., 500 F.2d 856 (9th Cir. 1974).publishedSee also Campbell v. United States, 373 U.S. 487 , 83 S.Ct. 1356 , 10 L.Ed.2d 501 (1963); Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 369 , 79 S.Ct. 1231 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 (1959); Wilke v. United States, 422 F.2d 1298, 1299 (9 Cir. 1970). 109…
- United States v. Polizzi, 500 F.2d 856 (9th Cir. 1974).publishedSee also Campbell v. United States, 373 U.S. 487 , 83 S.Ct. 1356 , 10 L.Ed.2d 501 (1963); Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 369 , 79 S.Ct. 1231 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 (1959); Wilke v. United States, 422 F.2d 1298, 1299 (9 Cir. 1970).
- United States of Am., Plintiff-Appellee v. Raymond Bennie Baxter, United States of Am. v. Rodolfo Gomez Marrufo, United States of Am. v. Charles Thomas Ward, United States of Am. v. Milton Norris Beasley, United States of Am. v. Antonio Orzco Rico, United States of Am. v. Estaban Gonzalez Catarino, United States of Am. v. Thomas Rodriquez, United States of Am. v. Cleveland Pipkins, Hernandez Cases. Grp. I Appeals, 492 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1974).publishedMitchell v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 430 F.2d 1023, 1029 (2d Cir. 1070); cf. Wilke v. United States, 422 F.2d 1298, 1299 (9th Cir. 1970) and 4 Wigmore on Evidence, 1124, pp. 194-195 (1940).
Show 2 more citing cases
- United States v. Baxter, 492 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1973).publishedMitchell v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 430 F.2d 1023, 1029 (2d Cir. 1970); cf. Wilke v. United States, 422 F.2d 1298, 1299 (9th Cir. 1970) and 4 Wigmore on Evidence, § 1124, pp. 194-195 (1940).
- United States v. Howard Dale Bernard, Gordon Rae Childress, Sammy Brice Brock, Roger Lee Bard, Russell Richard Cochran, 623 F.2d 551 (9th Cir. 1980).publishedSee also United States v. McSweaney, 507 F.2d 298 (9 Cir. 1974), and Wilke v. United States, 422 F.2d 1298, 1299 (9 Cir. 1970), where this court followed Augenblick . 22 .
Other citing cases
- United States v. John Michael Harris, 543 F.2d 1247 (9th Cir. 1976).published
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Frank Martin Wilke appeals from a conviction on a charge of bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)). He urges five errors.
1. During redirect examination of its witness Nuckols, the government sought to introduce his prior written statement to corroborate his testimony on direct. The court very properly sustained Wilke’s objection and in addition admonished the jury not to attach significance to the attempt. No prejudice is apparent.
2. We decline to speculate whether, as Wilke contends, the “spirit” of the Jencks Act (18 U.S.C. § 3500) extends to the government investigator’s field notes of an interview with a witness. The Act, in terms, is restricted to writings signed or adopted by a witness and to accounts which are “a substantially verbatim recital” of a witness’s oral statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e); United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 89 S.Ct. 528, 21 L.Ed.2d 537 (1969). The undisputed proof was that these notes were in neither category and that they were routinely destroyed after the agent drafted his “finished interview” report.
3. The government should not have told the jury, nor sought to prove, that the “getaway” car used by Wilke was a stolen vehicle; however, the district judge admonished the jury to disregard all proof on that subject; in milieu we conclude that no prejudice resulted sufficient to warrant a reversal of the judgment.
4. (a) The accomplice instructions were not inharmonious or confusing. True, the indictment charged Wilke and another as principals; but there was evidence that the two were acting in concert. The instructions made plain that one who aids and abets another in the commission of a crime is deemed a principal even though he does not himself perform or directly engage in all the acts constituting the crime.
(b) Wilke criticizes the instruction on circumstantial evidence, but does not particularize. We have nevertheless made some examination of the record and the instruction and conclude that the evidence warranted such an instruction and that the one given did not contain an incorrect statement of law.
5. Nor does Wilke’s final point have merit. The district court clearly acted within its discretion in denying his motion to postpone sentence. [1]
The judgment is affirmed.
. The motion, although oral and characterized by Wilke as one to continue, was in substance more nearly akin to one for new trial. It was made during Wilke’s arraignment for sentence. At that time Wilke asked the court to stay sentence and called attention -to his letter to the probation officer concerning one of the government’s witnesses. Therein Wilke had written that, following the trial, witness Nuckols said the government had brought pressure to bear upon him (Nuekols) in order to secure the latter's testimony against Wilke. This information was of course hearsay and as such provided no support for a new trial motion; but passing that defect, the fact asserted would not constitute a ground for a new trial — at most it would simply tend to impeach Nuckols’ credibility. Thus the motion even treated as one for new trial, properly made and supported by Nuckols’ affidavit, would afford Wilke no basis for relief.