From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Henricksen

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 8, 1977
564 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1977)

Summary

holding that the defendant's due process rights were violated because the plea agreement prohibited a defense witness from testifying "in any manner" regarding the defendant

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Frere

Opinion

No. 77-5159. Summary Calendar.

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

December 8, 1977.

Gerald H. Goldstein, San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Jamie C. Boyd, U.S. Atty., LeRoy Morgan Jahn, Robert S. Bennett, Asst. U.S. Attys., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.



Defendant Sherryl Lynn Grimsbo Henricksen was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). Prior to trial, a codefendant, whose testimony would have tended to exonerate Henricksen, plea bargained with the Government. As part of his plea, he had to agree not to testify in any manner regarding Henricksen. If he did testify, the Government stated the agreement would be void, and he would be tried on all counts of the indictment. The codefendant refused to testify.

The Government, with the concurrence of the Justice Department and the trial judge, has now confessed error on this point and has requested that we reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Based upon an independent examination of the record, we conclude that the Government's confession of error is in order. Substantial Government interference with a defense witness' free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process. United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223 (3d Cir. 1976); United States v. Thomas, 488 F.2d 334 (6th Cir. 1973). See United States v. Valdes, 545 F.2d 957, 959-961 (5th Cir. 1977).

The judgment of conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.


Summaries of

United States v. Henricksen

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 8, 1977
564 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1977)

holding that the defendant's due process rights were violated because the plea agreement prohibited a defense witness from testifying "in any manner" regarding the defendant

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Frere

holding government violated due process when it told the co-defendant that his plea agreement would be void if he testified for a co-defendant

Summary of this case from Maples v. Stegall

reversing where government threatened to void plea bargain if potential witness testified

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Dupre

In United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam), a federal prosecutor did exactly what the prosecutor here attempted to do. Before trial a codefendant, whose testimony would have tended to exonerate the defendant, plea bargained with the government.

Summary of this case from State v. Fox

invalidating a no-testify plea agreement

Summary of this case from State v. Blazas
Case details for

United States v. Henricksen

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SHERRYL LYNN GRIMSBO…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Dec 8, 1977

Citations

564 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1977)

Citing Cases

United States v. Hammond

This right is an element of due process of law guaranteed the defendant by the due process clause. Cases have…

State v. Peterson

Id. at 393-97, 405-16, 427-31, 447-48. This group of cases includes those on which Peterson relies: Webb v.…