U.S. v. Bell, 76-1442
| Decision Date | 21 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1442,76-1442 |
| Citation | 535 F.2d 886 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Harold BELL, Vernon James Jordan and Jerry Glenn Pendergrass, Defendants-Appellants. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Rudolph J. Inman, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla. (Court appointed), for Bell.
William T. Lassiter, Jr., Christopher A. White, Jacksonville, Fla., for Pendergrass & Jordan.
John L. Briggs, U.S. Atty., Ernest D. Mueller, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before THORNBERRY, CLARK and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Harold Bell, Vernon James Jordan, Jr., and Jerry Glenn Pendergrass have appealed from judgments of conviction for conspiracy to make false statements on two loan applications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and making and causing two false statements on loan applications submitted by Jerry Glenn Pendergrass and Vernon James Jordan, Jr., in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 and § 2.
Appellants' first contention is that the trial court committed reversible error in permitting the prosecutor to refer to appellant Jordan's prior felony conviction 1 in his final argument to the jury.
You can proceed.
MR. MUELLER: Ladies and Gentlemen, before I was interrupted, I was saying, with this background, is it possible to believe that Mr. Jordan went into this venture with entirely innocent intentions?
Vol. II Record on Appeal, pp. 407-408. The allegedly improper statements could not have had any prejudicial effect upon appellants Bell and Pendergrass, since neither one of them had a criminal record prior to this trial. The same cannot be said with regard to appellant Jordan. While Jordan's criminal record may have been properly admitted for impeachment purposes during his cross-examination, we do not think it was proper for the prosecutor to refer to an unrelated crime 2 in his final argument. The proper test to be applied where a prosecutor has engaged in improper argument is whether substantial rights of the defendant may have been affected. United States v. Rhoden, 453 F.2d 598, 600 (5 Cir. 1972), citing Dunn v. United States, 307 F.2d 883, 886 (5 Cir. 1962); United States v. Rodriguez, 503 F.2d 1370, 1371 (5 Cir. 1974). In spite of the fact that we disapprove of the prosecutorial statements alluding to Jordan's criminal record, we hold that the prejudicial effect of the alleged improper argument was slight, and amounted to harmless error in view of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt and the fact that the district court judge gave an instruction on the consideration which should be given to a felony conviction. United States v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Evans
...have been harmless. United States v. Roland, 449 F.2d 1281, 1282 (5th Cir. 1971); Driver v. United States, supra. Cf. United States v. Bell, 535 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1976).41 Cf. United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 764, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1972).42 Gent himself testified that he had su......
-
U.S. v. Vargas
...F.2d 431, 433 (7th Cir. 1965); United States v. Guajardo-Melendez, 401 F.2d 35, 40 (7th Cir. 1968); but cf. United States v. Bell, 535 F.2d 886, 888 (5th Cir. 1976). At some point, however, the inference asked to be drawn will be unreasonable enough that the suggestion of it cannot be justi......
-
U.S. v. Wilson
...United States v. Roland, 449 F.2d 1281 (5th Cir. 1971); Driver v. United States, 441 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1971). Cf. United States v. Bell, 535 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1976); Helton v. United States, 221 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. The final measure is prejudice. We are ever mindful of Mr. Justice Frankfur......
-
U.S. v. Bloom
...crimes was harmless. See United States v. Roland, 5 Cir., 1971, 449 F.2d 1281, 1282; Driver, supra; McBride, supra; cf. United States v. Bell, 5 Cir., 1976, 535 F.2d 886 (prosecutorial comment on other crimes evidence was harmless III. Purported Illegal Wiretap Activity Appellant's second m......