United States v. Jerry Buchanan, 500 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Jerry Buchanan, 500 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Leo Alexander Jones v. Richard L. Dugger, 928 F.2d 1020 (11th Cir. 1991)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 399 final witness at trial, Agent Gibbons of the FBI. Gibbons’ direct testimony dealt exclusively with another defendant, Gonzales, except for a reference to…1 citing caseopening of page *399 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Leo Alexander Jones v. Richard L. Dugger, 928 F.2d 1020 (11th Cir. 1991).published
    See Hale v. United States, 435 F.2d 737 , 752 n. *1026 22 (5th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 976 , 91 S.Ct. 1680 , 29 L.Ed.2d 142 (1971); United States v. Buchanan, 500 F.2d 398, 399 (5th Cir.1974).
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jerry BUCHANAN and Frank Anthony Fiorini, A/K/A Frank Sturgis, Defendants-Appellants
398.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 12, 1974.
Published opinion
500 F.2d 398
1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6893
Aram P. Goshgarian, Miami Beach, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Buchanan., Ellis S. Rubin, Miami Beach, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Fiorini., Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., William R. Northcutt, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Brown, Thornberry, Ainsworth.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

In this appeal from their convictions for transportation of stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312, 2313, § 2, appellants allege that the evidence against them was insufficient and that their Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation of witnesses against them were denied. We find these contentions to be without merit and affirm the convictions.

Appellants allege they were training members of the International Anti-Communist Brigade for an invasion of Cuba. The government’s theory was that this was just a guise to hide a conspiracy to transport stolen motor vehicles into Mexico. Taking the view most favorable to the government, a reasonably minded jury could accept the relevant evidence as sufficient to support appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Warner, 5 Cir., 1971, 441 F.2d 821.

Appellants’ other contentions deal with the cross-examination of the[*399] final witness at trial, Agent Gibbons of the FBI. Gibbons’ direct testimony dealt exclusively with another defendant, Gonzales, except for a reference to appellant Sturgis as the leader of the brigade. On cross-examination, appellant’s counsel sought to elicite testimony about a statement given to Gibbons by Sturgis, This question was ruled beyond the scope of direct examination.

The fact that Sturgis was the leader of the brigade had already been established by other witnesses Appellant’s contentions that he was denied the right to confrontation are without merit. He could have called the agent as his own witness, or taken the stand himself on this point. Any prejudice that might have resulted was harmless. See United States v. Resnick, 5 Cir., 1974, 488 F.2d 1165 at 1168 quoting from Kotteakos v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 10 L.Ed. 1557.

Affirmed.