329 F.2d 188 (5th Cir. 1964), 20472, Richards v. United States

Docket Nº:20472.
Citation:329 F.2d 188
Party Name:Joseph Linwood RICHARDS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Case Date:March 19, 1964
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Page 188

329 F.2d 188 (5th Cir. 1964)

Joseph Linwood RICHARDS, Appellant,


UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20472.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 19, 1964

          Rehearing Denied April 21, 1964.

         Walter G. Arnold, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.

         Robert R. Perry, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., William J. Hamilton, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Edward F. Boardman, U.S. Atty., Middle Dist. of Florida, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.

         Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS [*] and JONES, Circuit judges.

         TUTTLE, Chief Judge.

         This appeal from a conviction and sentence of the appellant for the crime of perjury in testimony given to a Grand Jury is based primarily on the admission by the trial court of testimony tending to prove general bad conduct and the commission of prior criminal offenses by the accused.

         The two count indictment charged the appellant with having sworn falsely while giving testimony before a Grand Jury in Tampa, Florida, in that he swore that he was not in Tampa on or about

Page 189

December 26 and 27, 1960, and that he swore falsely that a certain package received at his father's home did not contain money. The Grand Jury investigation, during which the testimony was given, was investigating a large robbery of an armored car on the night of December 26, 1960. During his appearance before the Grand Jury, appellant was questioned at length about his association with Hubert Hardin, his whereabouts on or about the time of the Rasdale armored car burglary, and whether or not he had received a package of money from Hubert Hardin shortly after the Rasdale burglary. It was in this context that the Government contended on the trial below that testimony given by appellant as to his not being present in Tampa on December 26 and 27 was material to the inquiry then being made by the Grand Jury. It is the Government's further contention that in order to show not only the materiality but the wilfullness which is an ingredient of the charge of perjury, 1 it was necessary on the trial for perjury to prove that the appellant had had an association with Hardin of a nature that would permit the jury to determine that his decision to testify falsely to the Grand Jury was based on a desire to prevent the Grand Jury from obtaining the truth as to appellant's whereabouts at the time of the crime.

         The grounds of appeal fall into two...

To continue reading