Overton v. United States, 71-1218 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1218 Summary Calendar.,71-1218 Summary Calendar. |
| Parties | James Timothy OVERTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
James T. Overton, pro se.
Seagal V. Wheatley, U. S. Atty., Jeremiah Handy, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and INGRAHAM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a denial without hearing of a § 2255 motion to vacate sentence imposed on appellant's conviction of endeavoring to influence and intimidate, by threats, a witness in the Court of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Overton v. United States, 403 F.2d 444 (5th Cir. 1968).
Appellant was convicted of endeavoring to intimidate Richard Hinton with respect to testimony to be given against appellant's brother. Since Hinton was in jail at the time of these occurrences, the threats were transmitted to Hinton by Hinton's wife. Appellant contends that inconsistencies between Hinton's testimony and Mrs. Hinton's testimony amounted to knowing use of perjured testimony by the government. This testimony was considered by the jury at appellant's trial and any inconsistencies must have been resolved against him. Such matters do not afford a ground for relief under § 2255. United States v. Marcello, 436 F.2d 1221 (5th Cir. 1971).
Hinton testified in three or four cases involving a number of defendants. Thereafter, in a matter unrelated to this case, Hinton recanted his testimony as to one defendant named Frank Smith. Appellant filed a copy of the ex parte statement of Hinton urging that this demonstrated that the government knowingly had caused perjured testimony. However, throughout the statement Hinton asserted that everything he had testified to was true as to all defendants except Smith.
Appellant also contends that Hinton committed perjury when he testified that the FBI had no deals or understandings with him in return for his testimony. Appellant cites portions of Hinton's statement exculpating Smith as the basis for the claim of perjury. Here, again, the statement is insufficient. Initially, it is noted that the statement was directed to Smith's case and is of questionable relevance. Further, in the statement Hinton said the FBI agents had told him that they could not make any promises. Although in his statement Hinton stated he had communications with the United States Attorney and had expectations of probation (which he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. U.S.
...in testimony by government witnesses do not establish the government's knowing use of false testimony. See Overton v. United States, 450 F.2d 919, 920 (5th Cir.1971). Here, the Stokes notes, which also would not be material, are solicited for impeachment purposes and at most would underscor......
-
State v. Sanders
...murder and could assess his credibility in light of that knowledge. Hence, there was no due process violation. See Overton v. United States (C.A.5, 1971), 450 F.2d 919, 920; Tapia v. Tansy (C.A.10, 1991), 926 F.2d 1554, In part A(1) of his fifth proposition, Sanders contends that the prosec......
-
State v. Lo
...F.2d 651 (9th Cir. 1972); Mixen v. United States, 469 F.2d 203 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 906 (1973); Overton v. United States, 450 F.2d 919 (5th Cir. 1971); Cardarella v. United States, 375 F.2d 222 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 882 (1967); United States v. Edmonson,......
-
Burr v. Jackson
...do not establish the government's knowing use of false testimony." Griley , 814 F.2d at 971 (citing Overton v. United States , 450 F.2d 919, 920 (5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam)). Two, the trial evidence included the contradictory descriptions of the fall that Scott and Bridges had provided ove......