United States v. Alben Wm. Barkley Truitt, 440 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Alben Wm. Barkley Truitt, 440 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Raimundo Antonio Hogan (ca11, 2019-06-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Raimundo Antonio Hogan
11th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
As we have long said, “one may not be heard to complain about the admission of evidence where, as here, he introduced that very evidence himself.” United States v. Truitt, 440 F.2d 1070, 1071 (5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam); see also United States v. Davis, 443 F.2d 560, 564 (5th Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schwarzkopf v. Brunswick Corp.
D. Minnesota · 2011 · confidence medium
B-2, at Ex. 49.) It has also cited the diary in its Motion papers. {See Reply at 9.) As succinctly stated by the Fifth Circuit, “[i]t is settled law that one waives his right to object to the admission of evidence if he later introduces ... that very evidence himself.” United States v. Truitt, 440 F.2d 1070, 1071 (5th Cir.1971) (per curiam ); accord, e.g., Mercer v. Theriot, 377 U.S. 152, 154 , 84 S.Ct. 1157 , 12 L.Ed.2d 206 (1964) (per curiam) (finding no error in admitting hearsay evidence when party elicited same evidence in his examination of the witness); United States v. Perez, 960 F…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Judith Perez, Marjorie Conrade
11th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
United States v. Truitt, 440 F.2d 1070, 1071 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 847 , 92 S.Ct. 150 , 30 L.Ed.2d 84 (1971); Wilson v. Attaway, 757 F.2d 1227, 1242 (11th Cir.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gennaro J. Angiulo, Donato F. Angiulo, Samuel S. Granito, Francesco J. Angiulo and Michele A. Angiulo
1st Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Rosenthal, 793 F.2d 1214, 1245 (11th Cir.1986) (stating that appellant could not challenge, on appeal, testimony that his own attorney had elicited at trial), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 919 , 107 S.Ct. 1377 , 94 L.Ed.2d 692 (1987); United States v. Truitt, 440 F.2d 1070, 1071 (5th Cir.) (similar), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 847 , 92 S.Ct. 150 , 30 L.Ed.2d 84 (1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert O. And Katherieen Goldsmith v. Diamond Shamrock Corporation
8th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Hester, 765 F.2d 723 (8th Cir.1985); Hampson v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 464 F.2d 562, 563 (3d Cir.1972) (per curiam); cf. Mercer v. Theriot, 377 U.S. 152, 154 , 84 S.Ct. 1157, 1159 , 12 L.Ed.2d 206 (1964) (per curiam) (improper admission of hearsay evidence not reversible error when party seeking relief not only didn’t object but elicited same evidence in his examination of the witness); United States v. Truitt, 440 F.2d 1070, 1071 (5th Cir.) (per curiam) (party cannot raise as error admission of evidence that he himself introduced as joint exhibit with the prosecut…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Richard Charles Marshall
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See United States v. Mariani, 539 F.2d 915, 921-22 (2d Cir.1976); United States v. Truitt, 440 F.2d 1070, 1071 (5th Cir.1971). 4 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) E.J. Wilson, Dearest Davis, and Cassandra Linder, Plaintiffs v. Roland Attaway
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
In addition, Rule 403 objections are waived if the objecting party later introduces evidence “of the same or similar import himself.” U. S. v. Truitt, 440 F.2d 1070, 1071 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 847 , 92 S.Ct. 150 , 30 L.Ed.2d 84 (1971).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Tony Darwin
11th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See U.S. v. Truitt, 440 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 847 , 92 S.Ct. 150 , 30 L.Ed.2d 84 (1971).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Ralph Mariani
2d Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See, United States v. Truitt, 440 F.2d 1070 (5 Cir. 1971); Trouser Corporation v. Goodman & Theise, 153 F.2d 284, 288 (3 Cir. 1946); 1 Wigmore on Evidence § 18(D) (3d Ed. 1975 Supp.); McCormick’s Handbook on the Law of Evidence § 55 (2d Ed. 1972).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. White Bird
N.D. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“Our judicial maxims, which aid in the application of the law, support this position: ‘[acquiescence in error takes away the right of objecting to it.’ N.D.C.C. § 31-11-05(7).” Grager , at ¶ 7; see State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 14 , 575 N.W.2d 658 (“Forfeiture is the failure to timely assert a right, while waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a right, and F.R.Crim.P. 52(b) applies only to ‘forfeited’ and not to ‘waived’ errors.”); see also United States v. Truitt, 440 F.2d 1070, 1071 (5th Cir.1971) (citing Mercer v. Theriot, 377 U.S. 152 , 84 S.Ct. 1157 , 12 L.E…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Alben Wm. Barkley TRUITT, Defendant-Appellant
28422_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 20, 1971.
440 F.2d 1070
Samuel S. Forman, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant., Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., J. V. Eskenazi, William C. White, Asst. U. S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Ainsworth, Goldberg, Per Curiam, Thornberry.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

Samuel S. Forman, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., J. V. Eskenazi, William C. White, Asst. U. S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG, and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The defendant, Alben William Barkley Truitt, was charged with violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1201, kidnapping, and 49 U.S.C.A. § 1472(i), aircraft piracy, after he allegedly forced the pilot of . a chartered aircraft to fly him to Cuba. The government learned that Truitt’s defense to these charges would be insanity and that he had hired a psychiatrist to conduct a mental examination for purposes of proving this defense. The government as a result requested that the court appoint a psychiatrist pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 4244. The court granted the government’s motion and appointed the defendant’s own psychiatrist. Subsequently, the court granted a motion by the government that an additional psychiatrist be appointed. The court then ordered the defendant to submit to an examination for purposes of determining his present ability to stand trial and his sanity at the time the offense was committed. The defendant and the government were also ordered to submit all reports concerning the defendant’s previous mental examinations to the court for the purpose of making this material available to the second psychiatrist. As a result of his examination the second psychiatrist concluded, and testified by way of deposition at trial, that Truitt was sane at the time of the commission of the offense and was competent to stand trial.

The defendant has raised grave questions concerning the constitutional validity of the procedures followed by the trial court. See Note, Requiring A Criminal Defendant To Submit To A Government Psychiatric Examination: An Invasion of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, 83 Harv.L.Rev. 648 (1970). While most of these issues remain unresolved in this Circuit we need not now consider them for the questions have not been properly raised. It is clear from the record that all psychiatric testimony, including the deposition objected to, was introduced by the defendant as a joint exhibit with the prosecution. It is settled law that one waives his right to object to the admission of evidence if he later introduces evidence of the same or similar import himself, Mercer v. Theriot, 1964, 377 U.S. 152, 84 S.Ct. 1157, 12 L.Ed.2d 206; 1 J. H. Wigmore, Evidence § 18 (1940); 88 C. J.S. Trial § 116 (1955). A fortiori one may not be heard to complain about the admission of evidence where, as here, he introduced that very evidence himself. Grogan v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 394 F.2d 287, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 830, 89 S.Ct. 97, 21 L.Ed.2d 100.

Affirmed.

Rehearing

[*1072] ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG, and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel, nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.