Abbott v. Wainwright, 79-2308

Decision Date09 May 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-2308,79-2308
Citation616 F.2d 889
PartiesDalton ABBOTT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, Fla., for respondent-appellant.

Richard M. Gale, Miami, Fla., for petitioner-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before THORNBERRY, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr. and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal we must decide whether the district judge erred when he granted appellee's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1976) because the denial of his motion for a severance made his state trial fundamentally unfair. We affirm.

During 1974 the State of Florida filed a sixty-six count information charging S. K. Bronstein with sixty-four counts of larceny, forgery, uttering, and conspiracy in connection with his activities as chief executive of the Cedars of Lebanon Hospital in Miami. Counts 65 and 66 charged Abbott and two codefendants, including Arthur Tifford, with assisting and maintaining Bronstein as accessories after the fact and with joining a conspiracy to assist and maintain Bronstein.

Prior to trial Abbott and the other codefendants filed a timely motion for misjoinder to separate their trials from Bronstein's. Each movant submitted an affidavit by Bronstein. In the affidavit for Abbott, Bronstein said he would offer exculpatory testimony that Abbott lacked knowledge of Bronstein's crimes, and that Bronstein had never told Abbott the true facts about his criminal activities. Bronstein declared that he would assert his fifth amendment right not to testify in a joint trial, but that he would testify with regard to these matters once he was removed from criminal jeopardy in this particular cause. Despite this affidavit, the trial judge denied the codefendants' motions for misjoinder and their later motions for severance.

The subsequent joint trial lasted over a month and featured much excitement because the trial judge cited Bronstein's attorney for contempt three times and the prosecutor once. The jury convicted all defendants on all counts charged. Abbott received a five year prison sentence on one count, followed by five years probation on the other count. Abbott appealed his conviction and denial of severance, but the state courts affirmed. Abbott then filed a federal habeas corpus petition, which the district judge granted on the authority of the prior district court decision...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Hardy
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1992
    ... ... Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776. Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (Witt ), however, supersedes Witherspoon ... Page 845 ... [825 P.2d 830] Abbott v. Wainwright (5th Cir.1980) 616 F.2d 889. 20 Both cases affirm issuance of a writ of habeas ... ...
  • Panzavecchia v. Wainwright, 80-5984
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • October 5, 1981
    ...14 or its state counterpart... Fla.R.Cr.P. 3.152(a)(2)." Alvarez, 607 F.2d at 685 (footnote omitted). See also Abbott v. Wainwright, 616 F.2d 889 (5th Cir. 1980) (prejudice from denial of motion to sever was not speculative, therefore writ granted). Under Fed.R.Crim.P. 14, a trial judge mus......
  • U.S. v. Dillman
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 16, 1994
    ...mentioned and that he always represented to Hatfield that the transactions at issue were legitimate. Hatfield cites Abbott v. Wainwright, 616 F.2d 889 (5th Cir.1980), in support of his contention that we should reverse for denial of severance because: (1) his central defense was that he did......
  • U.S. v. DeSimone
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • November 2, 1981
    ...428 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1970), and its progeny, see, e. g., Tifford v. Wainwright, 588 F.2d 954 (5th Cir. 1979); Abbott v. Wainwright, 616 F.2d 889 (5th Cir. 1980). This case authority requires the movant to demonstrate 1) a bona fide need for the testimony, 2) the substance of the testimon......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT