U.S. v. Majors, 78-5214
| Decision Date | 17 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-5214,78-5214 |
| Parties | 4 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 259 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny MAJORS, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Seymour London, North Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Jack V. Eskenazi, U. S. Atty., Thomas M. Sherouse, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Majors appeals from his conviction on three counts. Count 1 charged conspiracy to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Count 2 charged possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Count 3 charged distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Upon conviction, appellant was sentenced to custody and a special parole term on each count. Each sentence was the same and each was to run concurrently with the others.
Strong circumstantial evidence linking appellant with a heroin transaction through a Mr. Coby to undercover drug enforcement officers and a confidential informant was furnished by the testimony of the drug enforcement officers. Furthermore, Coby, who had previously entered a guilty plea to narcotics charges growing out of the same transaction, testified, giving direct evidence (not hearsay) of appellant's participation in the transaction. Although Coby was subjected to vigorous and skillful cross-examination designed to discredit his testimony, it never changed and the jury apparently found him to be a credible witness.
Coby's testimony on direct was substantiated by the testimony of his former attorney to the effect that Coby's version of the transaction, given to this attorney shortly after he was arrested, was entirely consistent with the testimony he had given on the witness stand. This testimony was properly admitted. Rule 801(d)(1)(B) Federal Rules of Evidence. It was not tendered nor admitted as the otherwise hearsay declaration of a coconspirator.
We have carefully examined appellant's contentions. While appellant urges that the evidence, leaving out the testimony of Coby, would have been insufficient for conviction, we need not address that contention because the testimony of Coby was taken and was clearly sufficient. In his testimony, Coby described in careful detail the personal participation of Majors in selling the heroin. Evidence of Majors' participation in a conspiracy, though...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. True
...See State v. Galloway, supra at 105-06. See also United States v. Herring, 582 F.2d 535, 541 (10th Cir. 1978); United States v. Majors, 584 F.2d 110, 111 (5th Cir. 1978); Slater v. Baker, 301 N.W.2d 315, 319 (Minn.1981). 4 Once the charge of fabrication has been made, only prior consistent ......
-
State v. Henderson
...illustrating the admissibility of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) rebuttal statements are United States v. Patterson, supra, and United States v. Majors, 584 F.2d 110 (5th Cir.1978), each remarkably similar to the facts at In United States v. Patterson, supra, a government witness was one Mancone, whose ......
-
Slater v. Baker, 51402.
..."according to your story," and whether she was being truthful regarding the alleged 1975 examination by Dr. Baker. In United States v. Majors, 584 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1978), the court held that where there was a "vigorous cross-examination" of the prosecution's witness the government could i......
-
The Press, Inc. v. Fins & Feathers Pub. Co.
...cross-examination of the witness. See id. at 319-20. See also Garcia v. Watkins, 604 F.2d 1297 (10th Cir.1979); United States v. Majors, 584 F.2d 110 (5th Cir.1978). Implicit in a vigorous cross-examination of a witness is the claim that he is being less than honest about his testimony. Res......