U.S. v. Rodriquez, 74-2434
| Decision Date | 15 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-2434,74-2434 |
| Citation | 503 F.2d 1370 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime Martinez RODRIQUEZ and Roberto C. Aguilar, Defendants-Appellants. Summary Calendar.* *Rule 18, 5 Cir.; Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
David C. Kellum, Pasadena, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendants-appellants.
Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., Ronald J. Waska, James R. Gough, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BELL, SIMPSON and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellants were convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm which was not registered, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 5861(d), 5871, and of unlawfully making a firearm (destructive device commonly known as a Molotov cocktail) and failing to pay the making tax, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 5861(f), 5871. Appellants seek reversal of their convictions because of alleged prejudicial remarks by the prosecutor in closing argument. A review of the remarks reveals they were not so prejudicial as to require reversal. We affirm.
Appellants admitted at trial that they set fire to a co-worker's car because of union activity. They were caught fleeing the scene. They alleged, however, they did not make a molotov cocktail, or intend to bomb anything.
In closing argument the prosecutor, Mr. Waska, said:
In actuality the appellant Aguilar had testified as follows through an interpreter:
The prosecutor and the judge obviously had faulty recollections. However, the prosecutor warned the jury to rely on their own recollections and the judge instructed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Houde, 78-5453
...the substantial rights of Appellants. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935); and United States v. Rodriquez, 503 F.2d 1370 (5 Cir. 1974). We hold that, considering the curative charges of the court to the jury, the substantial rights of the Appellants were......
-
United States v. Wilson
...in his cross examination of Agent Daley. A “defendant is entitled to a fair trial; not a perfect one.” United States v. Rodriquez, 503 F.2d 1370, 1371 (5th Cir.1974) (citing Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 619, 73 S.Ct. 481, 97 L.Ed. 593 (1953) ). Evidentiary rulings provide no basis......
-
U.S. v. Cook
...substantial rights of the defendant? Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935); United States v. Rodriquez, 503 F.2d 1370 (5th Cir. 1974). The appellant isolates five specific portions of the Government's closing argument as detrimental. During the course of h......
-
U.S. v. Freeman
...any, of the alleged improper argument here appears to be slight, while the evidence of guilt is overwhelming." United States v. Rodriquez, 503 F.2d 1370, 1371 (5th Cir. 1974). V. JURY Appellants argue that the jury instructions referring to "conspiracy" were erroneous. They proposed a charg......