U.S. v. Cross, 79-5704
| Decision Date | 02 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-5704,79-5704 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ransom Patrick CROSS, Defendant-Appellant. . Unit A |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion March 13, 1981, 5 Cir., 1981, 638 F.2d 1375).
Before WISDOM, RUBIN and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
In the panel opinion, we held there was insufficient evidence, as a matter of law, to support the conviction on Count I. We reversed the conviction and remanded the case to the district court. Citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), Cross now argues that this Court should direct a judgment of acquittal. We agree. Therefore, we order that a judgment of acquittal be entered on Count I of the indictment.
Cross also claims that the panel incorrectly concluded that the erroneous references to other charges, in light of the evidence supporting the conviction and the curative instruction given the jury, were harmless. We noted in the opinion that the government's claim of harmless error must travel uphill. We have carefully reconsidered the evidence adduced in support of Count II of the indictment. While the F.B.I. agent's testimony was plainly sufficient to support the conviction, it was far from "overwhelming." We hold, therefore, that the district court's error in admitting the repeated references to "other federal charges" necessitates reversal of the conviction on Count II and remand for a new trial.
The petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The panel opinion is MODIFIED. The conviction on both counts is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for entry of a judgment of acquittal on Count I and a new trial on Count II.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Farmer
...strengthened its holding by concluding that the admission of the pending charges constituted reversible error. United States v. Cross, 655 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981). See also Sellers, 906 F.2d at 603.24 Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) provides:(d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement......
-
U.S. v. Solomon
...U.S. 1021, 101 S.Ct. 3014, 69 L.Ed.2d 394 (1981); United States v. Cross, 638 F.2d 1375, 1379 (5th Cir. Unit A), modified on rehearing, 655 F.2d 50 (1981); United States v. Boffa, 89 F.R.D. 523, 532-33 However, we must also note that the conduct of the government agents in this case was hig......
-
U.S. v. Conaway
...than if Conaway had decided to confess. United States v. Cross, 638 F.2d 1375, 1380 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 655 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept.1981); Robertson, 582 F.2d at 1368. III. Conaway next contends that the government's proof of his actual income was insufficient becau......