At page 1390 Defining the scope of the search incident to arrest exception5 citing cases
- State v. Raphfeal Lyfold Myrick, 2014 WI 55, 848 N.W.2d 743.published For instance, in Norwood, a defendant wrote a letter to the circuit court judge in which he said that he wanted the judge to 6 See also United States v. Sayakhom, 186 F.3d 928, 935-36 (9th Cir. 1999) (adopting the Robertson test); United S…
- United States v. Ralph Merrill, 685 F.3d 1002 (11th Cir. 2012).publishedSee, e.g., United States v. Cross, 638 F.2d 1375, 1380 (5th Cir. Mar.1981); United States v. Posey, 611 F.2d 1389, 1390-91 (5th Cir.1980) (The “statement that [the agent] would bring [the defendant’s cooperation to the attention of the pro…
- State v. Cinel, 619 So. 2d 770 (La. Ct. App. 1993).publishedWhile holding that the defendant's statements were not protected under Rule 11(e)(6) because the officers told him that they could only recommend leniency, the Court also envisioned a situation where implied authority might still exist: No…
- United States v. Fraction, 613 F. Supp. 295 (D.N.J. 1985).publishedUnited States v. Hart, 619 F.2d 325, 326 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Fera, 616 F.2d 590, 593 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 969 , 100 S.Ct. 2951 , 64 L.Ed.2d 830 (1980); United States v. Posey, 611 F.2d 1389, 1390 (5th Cir.1980);…
- United States v. David Ray Keith, 764 F.2d 263 (5th Cir. 1985).publishedNor do the circumstances above recounted fall within any exceptional situation that might make plea negotiations -with other than an attorney inadmissible, where due for instance to governmental misrepresentations, the accused “exhibited a…
At page 1391 Admissibility of post-arrest bribe evidence under rule 404(b)5 citing casesexpectation that he was negotiating a bargain. Rather it is the antithesis of a bargained plea. The trial court admitted testimony that on his way to jail…
- United States v. Shirley, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (D.N.M. 2016).publishedSee, e.g., United States v. Mendez-Ortiz, 810 F.2d 76, 79 (6th Cir. 1986); United States v. Corbin, 734 F.2d 643, 656 (11th Cir. 1984); United States v. Monahan, 633 F.2d 984, 985 (1st Cir. 1980)(per curiam); United States v. Posey, 611 F.…
- United States v. Zheng Xiao Yi, 460 F.3d 623 (5th Cir. 2006).published We conclude it does not. 35 In United States v. Posey, citing Rule 404(b), this court held that evidence of a post-arrest attempted bribe of an arresting officer is permissible to establish guilt of the underlying crime charged. 611 F.2d 1…
- United States v. Yi, 451 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 2006).publishedIn United States v. Posey, citing Rule 404(b), this court held that evidence of a post-arrest attempted bribe of an arresting officer is permissible to establish guilt of the underlying crime charged. 611 F.2d 1389, 1391 (5th Cir.1980) (“T…
- United States v. Jorge Mendez-Ortiz, 810 F.2d 76 (6th Cir. 1987).publishedUnited States v. Corbin, 734 F.2d 643 , 656 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Gonzalez, 703 F.2d 1222, 1223 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam); United States v. Gonsalves, 668 F.2d 73, 75 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 909 , 102 S.Ct. 1759 ,…
v.
James Allen POSEY, A/K/A James D. Johnstone, Defendant-Appellant
This is a companion case to U. S. v. Edmonds, et al., 611 F.2d 1386, decided this same day. Appellant Posey was tried separately from the Edmonds defendants and convicted.
For the reasons set out in Edmonds, Posey’s Fourth Amendment contentions and his challenges to the grand and petit jury selection process are without merit.
The trial court did not err in admitting into evidence an incriminating statement made by Posey on the night of his arrest, which Posey asserts was given during plea bargaining. See Fed.R.Evid. 410; Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(6).
Under U. S. v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc), we held that a defendant’s statement is inadmissible on the ground given during plea bargaining only if he “exhibited an actual subjective expectation to negotiate a plea at the time of the discussion” and the “expectation was reasonable given the totality of objective circumstances.” Id. at 1366 (citations omitted). After being fully advised of his Miranda rights Posey told Rayner he would like to “cut a deal,” to “make some kind of negotiated settlement” with the district court. Rayner told Posey that the only thing he could promise him was that he would bring his cooperation to the attention of the United States Attorney’s office and of the court. Assuming but without deciding that Posey exhibited sufficient subjective expectation to negotiate a plea to meet the first prong of Robertson, he did not meet the second prong. Rayner’s statement that he would bring Posey’s cooperation to the attention of the prosecutor and the court did not give Posey a reasonable[*1391] expectation that he was negotiating a bargain. Rather it is the antithesis of a bargained plea.
The trial court admitted testimony that on his way to jail Posey offered a county sheriff $100,000 to let him out of the car. This attempt to bribe a government official in order to escape shortly after arrest was clearly admissible as evidence of guilt. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); U. S. v. Picarelli, 148 F.2d 997, 998 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 326 U.S. 722, 66 S.Ct. 27, 90 L.Ed. 427 (1945); cf. U. S. v. Veltre, 591 F.2d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 1979); U. S. v. Ballard, 423 F.2d 127, 133 (5th Cir. 1970) (evidence of actual escape).
AFFIRMED.