United States v. Doe

5 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Moody

    903 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1990)   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the government broadened its fraud case when it brought up new, uncharged frauds in rebuttal

    Our caselaw instructs that surrebuttal is merited where (1) the government's rebuttal testimony raises a new issue, which broadens the scope of the government's case, and (2) the defense's proffered surrebuttal testimony is not tangential, but capable of discrediting the essence of the government's rebuttal testimony. See United States v. Durnin, 632 F.2d 1297, 1301 n. 8 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980); Winkle, 587 F.2d at 712; United States v. Doe, 488 F.2d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 991, 94 S.Ct. 2400, 40 L.Ed.2d 769 (1974). The government argues that no new issue was raised during Bauman's rebuttal testimony, as it had charged throughout this trial that Moody secured fraudulent Foundation grants for his own benefit.

  2. United States v. Durnin

    632 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that a defendant was not entitled to a good-faith reliance instruction where there was "no evidence in the record that he either sought the advice of counsel, personally received advice after full disclosure, or followed the advice in good faith"

    Since this rebuttal testimony raised no new issue and since the proffered surrebuttal witnesses were not able to rebut the essence of Mr. Magee's testimony, the district court's decision to disallow surrebuttal was not an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827, 100 S.Ct. 51, 62 L.Ed.2d 34 (1979); United States v. Sadler, 488 F.2d 434 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 931, 94 S.Ct. 2642 (1974); United States v. Doe, 488 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 991, 94 S.Ct. 2400, 40 L.Ed.2d 769 (1974). D. Excluded Testimony

  3. United States v. Daniels

    572 F.2d 535 (5th Cir. 1978)   Cited 175 times
    Holding that defendant's confrontation clause rights were not violated where defense counsel refused to call a particular witness and, after the defense rested, the trial court declined a request by defendant himself to call the witness

    The district court in the case on appeal did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the defendant's case or to call Lafitte as a court witness. See United States v. Doe, 488 F.2d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 991, 94 S.Ct. 2400, 40 L.Ed.2d 769 (1974); Steinberg v. United States, 162 F.2d 120, 124 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 808, 68 S.Ct. 108, 92 L.Ed. 386 (1947). The defendant next objects to the admission of allegedly improper opinion evidence.

  4. United States v. Bibbs

    564 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1978)   Cited 37 times
    Holding victims at gunpoint; beating and threatening to kill any who attempted escape

    The defendants in the case on appeal could have requested that Boyd be permitted to testify in surrebuttal or that their case be reopened. United States v. Webb, 533 F.2d 391, 395 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Sadler, 488 F.2d 434, 435-36 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 931, 94 S.Ct. 2642, 41 L.Ed.2d 234 (1974); United States v. Doe, 488 F.2d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 991, 94 S.Ct. 2400, 40 L.Ed.2d 769 (1974). Therefore, the Government's failure to recall Janet Boyd before introducing evidence concerning her subsequent inconsistent statement was not a reversible error.

  5. United States v. Sadler

    488 F.2d 434 (5th Cir. 1974)   Cited 21 times
    Adopting the reasoning from Turner , 441 F.2d at 739, that "[t]he testimony of the government's rebuttal [witness] in this case does not appear to us to be ‘new’ "

    441 F.2d at 739. When essentially the same question arose again recently in United States v. Doe, 488 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1973), this court adhered to the reasoning of the Turner decision. We do so here as well.