United States v. James Bobby Impson, 535 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. James Bobby Impson, 535 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" State v. Canty
Conn. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Impson, [ 531 F.2d 274 , reh. denied, 535 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1976)].” Chapman v. United States, supra, 1249.
discussed Cited "see" Don Garriga Chapman v. United States
5th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Impson, 506 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), vacated and remanded, 422 U.S. 1031 , 95 S.Ct. 2647 , 45 L.Ed.2d 688 (1975), on remand, 531 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1976), rehearing denied, 535 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1976).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James Bobby IMPSON, Defendant-Appellant
74-1683.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 14, 1976.
535 F.2d 286
Melvyn Carson Bruder, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellant., Frank D. McCown, U. S. Atty., John W. Sweeney, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Ft. Worth, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Thornberry, Simpson, Morgan.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion 5-10-76, 5 Cir., 1976, 531 F.2d 274)

Before THORNBERRY, SIMPSON and MORGAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Having been specifically directed by the Supreme Court [1] to reconsider this appeal in the light of Hale 2 we decline the invitation of the appellee United States [3] to hold that because this cause was tried prior to the decision in Hale, we should deny retroactive application of Hale to Impson’s case. We are urged that United States v. Ramirez, 5 Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 950, cert. denied 1971, 404 U.S. 869, 92 S.Ct. 91, 30 L.Ed.2d 113, and its progeny clearly stated the governing law in this Circuit at all times prior to the decision in Hale.

While, as pointed out by the petition, neither Hale nor our decision, United States v. Impson, 5 Cir. 1976, 531 F.2d 274, were decided on constitutional grounds, [4] nevertheless the basis for each decision was prejudice to the rights of the defendant on trial engendered by bringing to a trial jury’s attention the silence of the defendant on trial in the face of post-arrest police interrogation. We adhere to our decision that, under the circumstances present, reference to James Bobby Impson’s silence carried with it an intolerably prejudicial impact, 531 F.2d 274 at 279, paraphrasing Hale, supra, 422 U.S. 171 at 179, 95 S.Ct. 2133 at 2138, 45 L.Ed.2d 99 at 107.

The petition for rehearing in the above entitled and numbered cause is ordered DENIED.

1

. Impson v. United States, 1975, 422 U.S. 1031, 95 S.Ct. 2647, 45 L.Ed.2d 688.

2

. United States v. Hale, 1975, 422 U.S. 171, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 45 L.Ed.2d 99.

3

. A point raised for the first time in the government’s petition for rehearing.

4

. Since our decision in this case, United States v. Impson, 5 Cir. 1976, 531 F.2d 274, the Supreme Court has now determined in a state habeas corpus setting that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause forbids the use by the prosecution for impeachment purposes of testimony as to the accused’s silence at the time of arrest and after receipt of Miranda warnings. See Doyle v. Ohio, 44 U.S.Law Week 4902, - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91, decided June 17, 1976.