U.S. v. Birdsong, 92-4126

Decision Date04 February 1993
Docket NumberNo. 92-4126,92-4126
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Booker BIRDSONG, Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Lori Barrist, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Miami, FL, for defendant-appellant.

Maria A. Franco, Linda Collins Hertz, and Ann M. Hayes, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, FL, for plaintiff-appellee.

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

Before ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and HILL, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This case comes before the Court on Defendant/Appellant's appeal from his conviction in the District Court for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count II). Appellant was acquitted on charges of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count I) and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count III). This appeal presents two issues. First, Appellant contends that the District Court erred in denying the defendant's motion to bifurcate the possession issue from the other elements of the crime charged in Count II. Second, Appellant alleges that the District Court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during the search of his car.

Appellant contends that the District Court erred by failing to bifurcate the trial on Count II, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Appellant argues that the prejudicial effect of the label "convicted felon" would have been avoided if the District Court had bifurcated Count II so that the jury heard evidence of possession of a firearm before the presentation of any evidence of the defendant's prior criminal record. A request to bifurcate the presentation of evidence on different elements of a single offense is extremely rare. The First Circuit Court of Appeals faced such a request for a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in United States v. Collamore, 868 F.2d 24 (1st Cir.1989). In that case, the court granted a motion for writ of mandamus, effectively reversing the District Court's order granting the defendant's motion to bifurcate the elements of a possession of a firearm by a convicted felon charge. The court reasoned:

First, when a jury is neither read the statute setting forth the crime nor told of all the elements of the crime, it may, justifiably, question whether what the accused did was a crime. The present case is a stark example. Possession of a firearm by most people is not a crime. A juror who owns or who has friends and relatives who own firearms may wonder why [the defendant's] possession was illegal. Doubt as to the criminality of [the defendant's] conduct may influence the jury when it considers the possession element.

Collamore, 868 F.2d at 28. A second problem with bifurcation of the elements of a single offense recognized by the Collamore court is the need to use special interrogatories which can unduly hinder jury deliberations by allowing the trial judge to carefully guide the jury to its conclusion. We specifically adopt the reasoning of the First Circuit in Collamore and hold that the District Court did not err by failing to grant the defendant's motion to bifurcate the trial on the elements of the charge of possession of a firearm by a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • State v. Jones
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 18 Julio 1995
    ...elements of the offense, the jury might question whether the accused's conduct constituted a crime. Id., 1395-96; see United States v. Birdsong, 982 F.2d 481 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 980, 113 S.Ct. 2984, 125 L.Ed.2d 680 (1993) (possession of firearm by most people is not crime); ......
  • People v. Marshall
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 7 Agosto 1996
    ...States v. Spock (1st Cir.1969) 416 F.2d 165, 181; United States v. Ogull (S.D.N.Y.1957) 149 F.Supp. 272, 276; United States v. Birdsong (11th Cir.1993) 982 F.2d 481, 482.) These so-called trial-splitting devices include "bifurcation" (presenting factual components of a criminal charge to di......
  • Carter v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Julio 2002
    ...and affirmed the trial court's decision not to bifurcate the prior felony issue from the possession issue. See also United States v. Birdsong, 982 F.2d 481, 482 (11th Cir.),cert. denied, 508 U.S. 980, 113 S.Ct. 2984, 125 L.Ed.2d 680 State courts and the District of Columbia also have conclu......
  • United States v. Known, Criminal File No. 1:10–CR–251–10–TWT.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 2 Diciembre 2011
    ...may conduct a warrantless search of an automobile even after the vehicle is impounded and in police custody); United States v. Birdsong, 982 F.2d 481, 483 (11th Cir.1993) (holding that automobile exception applied even though the defendant already had been taken into custody and the police ......
  • 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