U.S. v. Hellman, 76-3716
| Decision Date | 14 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-3716,76-3716 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eli H. HELLMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Theodore J. Sakowitz, Federal Public Defender, Paul M. Korchin, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Jack V. Eskenazi, U. S. Atty., Karen L. Atkinson, Michael P. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.
The Government has confessed error in this conviction of conspiracy, distribution of 61/2 grams of cocaine, and possession thereof with intent to distribute. We therefore reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.
The Government and the defense had entered into a lengthy stipulation to the effect that "if the Government were to have called various witnesses, they would have testified as set forth in the stipulation." Rather than restricting the jury to the consideration of the testimony that these witnesses would give, the court charged the jury as follows:
This means that the defendant has stipulated that the Government would have proved a prima facie case of his guilt subject to your finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did so with the required specific intent. On this issue the Government has the burden of proof.
There was no objection, so reversal depends upon plain error. Inasmuch as this stipulation was not intended to relieve the Government of its burden of proving all essential elements of the offense, however, but only to serve the purpose of eliminating the necessity of calling certain witnesses, it being agreed as to what their testimony would be if called, the court's instruction was wrong.
The court did not instruct the jury on the essential elements of the offense charged. This was plain error.
Because the stipulation entered into by the parties only agreed as to what certain testimony would be, with no agreement that this testimony would be true, this case cannot be governed by United States v. Harper, 460 F.2d 705 (5th Cir. 1972), but rather must be ruled by United States v. Bosch, 505 F.2d 78 (5th Cir. 1974).
The Government's memorandum recited that, in light of a recommendation of the Appellate Section, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, it was conceding that prejudicial error occurred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Gonzalez
...an instruction would have relieved the government from its burden of proving a violation of Sec. 922(a)(6). See United States v. Hellman, 560 F.2d 1235, 1236 (5th Cir.1977). However, as is patently clear from the district court's instruction, the jury was never told that it was required to ......
-
United States v. Delgado-Marrero
...the charged crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a finding of reversible plain error may be proper. See United States v. Hellman, 560 F.2d 1235, 1236 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Howard, 506 F.2d 1131, 1133–34 (2d Cir.1974). Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v......
-
U.S. v. Klein, s. 75-2023
...following a government confession of error because of an erroneous instruction given by the district court. United States v. Hellman, 560 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1977). As of this date, Hellman has not been retried for a third Klein raises several points on appeal. We have considered each alleg......
-
U.S. v. Kleinschmidt, 78-5427
...510 F.2d 1003, 1004, and it provided sufficient evidence for the court to conclude that the substance was marijuana. United States v. Hellman, 5 Cir. 1977, 560 F.2d 1235 is not to the contrary. We there held that such a stipulation does not eliminate the requirement that a jury be instructe......