U.S. v. Hastings, Nos. 80-1224
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before SWYGERT and FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit Judges, and SPRECHER; SWYGERT |
| Citation | 660 F.2d 301 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kelvin HASTINGS, Gable Gibson, Napoleon Stewart, Gregory Lamont Williams, and Kevin Wendell Anderson, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Docket Number | Nos. 80-1224,80-1225,80-1246,80-1247 and 80-1398 |
| Decision Date | 20 November 1981 |
Page 301
v.
Kelvin HASTINGS, Gable Gibson, Napoleon Stewart, Gregory
Lamont Williams, and Kevin Wendell Anderson,
Defendants-Appellants.
Decided Sept. 22, 1981.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1981.
Page 302
Marsha L. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., James R. Burgess, Jr., U. S. Atty., East St. Louis, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.
Michael Feist, Steven E. Katzman, Belleville, Ill., Paul V. Esposito, Lewis, Overbeck & Furman, Chicago, Ill., William L. Gagen, Frederick J. Hess, Belleville, Ill., David E. Booth, Federal Public Defender, East St. Louis, Ill., for defendants-appellants.
Before SWYGERT and FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit Judges, and SPRECHER, Circuit Judge.
SWYGERT, Senior Circuit Judge.
Defendants-appellants Napoleon Stewart, Gregory Williams, Gable Gibson, Kevin Anderson, and Kelvin Hastings allege a number of grounds for reversal of their convictions of three federal offenses: kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1); transporting a woman across state lines for immoral purposes in violation of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421; and conspiracy to commit the foregoing offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Only one of the grounds, prosecutorial misconduct, is of such magnitude as to require reversal. We shall treat that issue in this opinion. The remaining issues are being disposed of in an unpublished order filed simultaneously with this opinion.
About 2:00 a. m. on October 11, 1979, three women were passengers in a car driven by Randy Newcomb in East St. Louis, Illinois. Five men, later identified as the defendants, and riding in a turquoise Cadillac, forced Newcomb's car off the road. Two of the women were taken from the car, and one of them was raped at the scene in the presence of Newcomb. The women were then put into the Cadillac and taken to St. Louis, Missouri, where they were raped and subjected to deviant sex acts.
The women, upon being released from their captors about 6:00 a.m. on October 11, contacted the St. Louis police and furnished descriptions of the five subjects, the vehicle, and the locations of the sexual activity. Acting upon this information, the police located the residence of Napoleon Stewart. The police entered after receiving consent from Stewart's mother. They located Stewart in his home, and placed him under arrest; he later identified the other defendants and the vehicle. The police then arrested Williams, Gibson, Anderson, and Hastings; they also found and seized Williams's turquoise Cadillac. Each defendant was identified by one or more of the victims at lineups arranged by the police.
After a four-day trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts as to each defendant on all counts. The trial judge ordered prison sentences ranging from forty to fifty years....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. DelVecchio
...U.S. 957, 85 S.Ct. 1797, 14 L.Ed.2d 730 (1965). The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for retrial. United States v. Hastings, 660 F.2d 301 (7th Cir.1981). In doing so, it declined to apply the harmless error doctrine analysis of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824,......
-
United States v. Hasting, No. 81-1463
...identity and consent. The patent inconsistency of these defense theories could hardly have escaped the jurors' attention. Pp. 510-512. 660 F.2d 301 (7th Cir., 1981), reversed and remanded. John F. DePue, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Paul V. Esposito, Chicago, Ill., for respondents. Chi......
-
U.S. v. Monaghan, No. 83-2325
...521 F.2d 950, 953 (D.C.Cir.1975)), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 961, 101 S.Ct. 375, 66 L.Ed.2d 229 (1980). 2 See United States v. Hastings, 660 F.2d 301 (7th Cir.1981), rev'd on other grounds, 461 U.S. 499, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (reversing court of appeals for failure to consider w......
-
U.S. v. LeQuire, No. 89-7155
...aspects of the case. Understandably, the defendant did not mention the harmless-error doctrine; but did discuss United States v. Hasting, 660 F.2d 301 (7th Cir.1980), which was later reversed by the Supreme Court. The prosecution, after the opinion had been filed in Griggs, then petitioned ......
-
State v. DelVecchio
...U.S. 957, 85 S.Ct. 1797, 14 L.Ed.2d 730 (1965). The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for retrial. United States v. Hastings, 660 F.2d 301 (7th Cir.1981). In doing so, it declined to apply the harmless error doctrine analysis of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824,......
-
U.S. v. Monaghan, No. 83-2325
...521 F.2d 950, 953 (D.C.Cir.1975)), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 961, 101 S.Ct. 375, 66 L.Ed.2d 229 (1980). 2 See United States v. Hastings, 660 F.2d 301 (7th Cir.1981), rev'd on other grounds, 461 U.S. 499, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (reversing court of appeals for failure to consider w......
-
United States v. Hasting, No. 81-1463
...identity and consent. The patent inconsistency of these defense theories could hardly have escaped the jurors' attention. Pp. 510-512. 660 F.2d 301 (7th Cir., 1981), reversed and remanded. John F. DePue, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Paul V. Esposito, Chicago, Ill., for respondents. Chi......
-
People v. McNair, No. 80-593
...Honor." Defendant urges that this argument constituted reversible error. Defendant relies upon United States v. Hastings (7th Cir. 1981), 660 F.2d 301. There, the court of appeals reversed a Mann Act conviction. In final argument, the prosecutor made four rather lengthy statements regarding......