U.S. v. Doran, 77-5250

Decision Date21 December 1977
Docket NumberNo. 77-5250,77-5250
Citation564 F.2d 1176
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Alonzo DORAN, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. *
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

John Rixie Mouton (Court-Appointed) Lafayette, La., for defendant-appellant.

Edward L. Shaheen, U. S. Atty., D. H. Perkins, Jr., 1st Asst. U. S. Atty., Shreveport, La., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Robert Alonzo Doran was convicted, after a jury trial, for conspiracy and aiding and abetting the interstate transportation of forged securities. 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2, 371, and 2314. The Government presented evidence showing that defendant induced several women to open bank accounts using false names. At defendant's instruction, they later deposited worthless out of state checks for large sums of money and then withdraw most of the face amount of the checks from the bank. Defendant testified that he was not involved in the transactions.

On appeal, defendant asserts: (1) reversal is warranted under Rule 11(e)(6), Fed.R.Crim.P., due to his cross-examination by the prosecutor concerning statements he made during plea bargaining negotiations; (2) the jury exhibited hostility and prejudice to him that was not justified by the evidence; and (3) he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

I. Cross-Examination Concerning Plea Bargaining

Defendant cannot obtain reversal under Rule 11(e)(6), which prohibits evidentiary use of statements made during plea bargaining, because the defendant himself injected the plea bargain situation into his direct testimony.

Defendant testified in his own behalf. On direct examination, his attorney asked him whether the Government had offered a plea bargain deal. He answered that he had refused the deal because he was innocent. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked him about a counter-offer he had made to the Government. After an objection was overruled, defendant said he had requested probation and offered to repay the money that the banks had lost. He explained that having been told that money had been taken, he offered to repay it, even though he was innocent, because he wished to avoid imprisonment. At the end of the case for the defense, the judge cautioned the jury that they should not consider this in deciding on defendant's guilt or innocence.

Clearly, evidence of a withdrawn guilty plea, an offer to plead guilty, and statements made in connection with plea negotiations are completely inadmissible at trial under Rule 11(e)(6). One exception allows its use in a perjury prosecution.

No reversible error occurred, here, however, because the doctrine of "invited error" applies. The accepted rule is that where the injection of allegedly inadmissible evidence is attributable to the action of the defense, its introduction does not constitute reversible error. United States v. Taylor, 508 F.2d 761, 763-764 (5th Cir. 1975). The Government could cross-examine the defendant on his direct testimony about the plea negotiations. Defendant was allowed to explain his plea offer, his explanation was consistent with his defense of innocence, and the judge gave a cautionary instruction to the jury. Cf. United States v. Martinez, 536 F.2d 1107, 1109 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 985, 97 S.Ct. 505, 50 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976), where the invited error doctrine did not precisely fit, but the Court found any error to be harmless.

II. Hostility or Prejudice of the Jury

After the jury had retired to deliberate, it sent the judge a note requesting a phone number to call in case any of them were intimidated, and requesting an escort home for one juror. Defendant contends their fear was not justified by the record, and shows outside influence on the jury that prejudiced him.

The record contains evidence of defendant's violent nature. Two witnesses testified that defendant had thrown a briefcase at one of the women involved in his scheme, and had threatened to break her neck. There was testimony that defendant threatened to kill anyone who went against him, and defendant himself testified that if he found the two people who he claimed set him up, he intended "to given them a beating."

Since the testimony showed defendant to be vindictive and violent, he has failed to meet his burden of showing any impermissible influence or prejudice. See United States v. Riley, 544 F.2d 237, 242 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 932, 97 S.Ct. 1554, 51...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • U.S. v. Baytank (Houston), Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 13, 1991
    ...States v. Raymer, 876 F.2d 383, 388 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 198, 107 L.Ed.2d 152 (1989); United States v. Doran, 564 F.2d 1176, 1177 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 928, 98 S.Ct. 1498, 55 L.Ed.2d 524 (1978); United States v. Taylor, 508 F.2d 761, 763-64 (5t......
  • Washington v. Watkins
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 14, 1981
    ...failure to call witness when petitioner failed even to allege how witness' testimony would have been helpful); United States v. Doran, 564 F.2d 1176, 1177-78 (5th Cir. 1977) (denying relief on ineffective assistance claim that was predicated on counsel's failure to locate and subpoena two w......
  • Washington v. Strickland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 23, 1982
    ...635 F.2d 487, 491 (5th Cir. 1981); Lovett v. Florida, 627 F.2d at 709-10; Buckelew v. United States, 575 F.2d at 521; United States v. Doran, 564 F.2d 1176, 1178 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 928, 98 S.Ct. 1498, 55 L.Ed.2d 524 (1977); Pennington v. Beto, 437 F.2d 1281, 1285 (5th Cir. 1......
  • U.S. v. Baker, 00-13083.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • December 13, 2005
    ...is attributable to the action of the defense, its introduction does not constitute reversible error.") (quoting United States v. Doran, 564 F.2d 1176, 1177 (5th Cir.1977)). Moreover, a defendant can "invite" non-responsive testimony when he insists on pursuing a line of questioning after it......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Other Evidence Rules
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Evidence Foundations Other Evidence Rules
    • May 5, 2019
    ...door and lead to the admission of others that ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. See United States v. Doran , 564 F.2d 1176 (5th Cir. 1977). Prosecutions for Perjury and False Statement There is another exception to Rule 410’s prohibition against admissibility of ......
  • Other Evidence Rules
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2014 Contents
    • July 31, 2014
    ...door and lead to the admission of others that ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. See United States v. Doran , 564 F.2d 1176 (5th Cir. 1977). Prosecutions for Perjury and False Statement There is another exception to Rule 410’s prohibition against admissibility of ......
  • Other Evidence Rules
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2016 Contents
    • July 31, 2016
    ...door and lead to the admission of others that ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. See United States v. Doran , 564 F.2d 1176 (5th Cir. 1977). Prosecutions for Perjury and False Statement There is another exception to Rule 410’s prohibition against admissibility of ......
  • Other evidence rules
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2018 Contents
    • July 31, 2018
    ...door and lead to the admission of others that ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. See United States v. Doran , 564 F.2d 1176 (5th Cir. 1977). Prosecutions for Perjury and False Statement There is another exception to Rule 410’s prohibition against admissibility of ......
  • 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