U.S. v. Auten, 77-5667
| Decision Date | 07 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-5667,77-5667 |
| Citation | 570 F.2d 1284 |
| Parties | 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 173 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Jay AUTEN, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles B. Robinson (Court-appointed), Sherman, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Charles Jay Auten, pro se.
John H. Hannah, Jr., U. S. Atty., T. J. Bayham, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Tyler, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Before GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Charles Jay Auten appeals from a conviction of conspiring to negotiate stolen Postal Money Orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Six contentions are presented on appeal, and finding all to be without merit, we affirm.
The first asserted ground of error is that government witness George Eller was improperly allowed to hear the testimony of preceding government witnesses despite defendant's request that he be excluded from the courtroom. Under Fed.R.Evid. 615, witnesses can be excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. There is, however, an exception for a representative of a party which is not a natural person. The Committee Report on Rule 615 plainly indicates that a government investigative agent such as Inspector Eller is within this exception. See S.Rep.No. 1277, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 26 (1974), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1974, p. 7051. Therefore, the district court's refusal to exclude Inspector Eller was correct.
Defendant also contends that prejudicial error resulted from the trial court's erroneous rulings on defendant's objections to the government's examination of several witnesses. It is urged that leading questions were asked of government witnesses Mamie Zable, Cynthia Myers, Debbie Silkwood and Michael Taylor. The control of leading questions is within the discretion of the trial court. See United States v. Littlewind, 8 Cir., 1977,551 F.2d 244, 245; Rotolo v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 404 F.2d 316, 317. We find no abuse of discretion in this case, nor any real possibility of prejudice.
Defendant's third contention is that the district court improperly commended government counsel for providing Jencks Act materials before rather than after the witness testified. This remark was obviously harmless to defendant. The fourth assertion is that the district court improperly questioned witness Silkwood. A judge is allowed under Fed.R.Evid. 614(b) to interrogate any witness. The district court in this case did not receive hearsay testimony in response to its questions, but rather sought to determine the admissibility of testimony regarding Silkwood's knowledge of certain circumstances of the conspiracy. There was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bobo
...exception intended to permit an investigative agent to remain in court even though he will be called as a witness. United States v. Auten, 570 F.2d 1284 (5th Cir. 1978); Advisory Committee Note to Rule 615, 28 U.S.C.A. Rules of Evidence at 446 (1975). We need not decide whether this excepti......
-
U.S. v. Butera
...See United States v. Alvarado, 647 F.2d 537, 540 (5th Cir. 1981); In re United States, 584 F.2d 666 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Auten, 570 F.2d 1284, 1285 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 899, 99 S.Ct. 264, 58 L.Ed.2d 247 (1978); S.Rep.No.93-1277, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974), reprint......
-
U.S. v. Mendoza
...who is a representative of a party which is not a natural person, such as the Government, to remain in the courtroom. United States v. Auten, 5 Cir., 1978, 570 F.2d 1284.1 Tape recordings of the same conversations were also introduced.2 At every point in the Ivey opinion, the court states t......
-
Salter v. Westra
...questions asked of Mr. Salter at trial. The standard of review for such a claim of error is for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Auten, 570 F.2d 1284 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 899, 99 S.Ct. 264, 58 L.Ed.2d 247 (1978); United States v. Johnson, 495 F.2d 1097 (5th Cir.1974). ......