U.S. v. Wiesle, 76-1358

Decision Date21 September 1976
Docket NumberNo. 76-1358,76-1358
Citation542 F.2d 61
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Thomas WIESLE, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Randy Coleman, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.

W. H. Dillahunty, U.S. Atty., Robert L. Neighbors, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Samuel A. Perroni, Asst. U.S. Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.

Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, and STEPHENSON and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Wiesle was convicted by a jury verdict of guilt 1 on one count of theft from an interstate shipment of freight in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether appellant's motion for a mistrial, based on the fact that during the government's case-in-chief testimony was elicited that two accomplices had pled guilty to the same offense for which appellant was being tried, was correctly denied. We affirm.

The government's evidence showed that on December 11, 1974, Affiliated Food Stores of Little Rock, Arkansas, ordered 168 cases of Crisco Shortening from the Proctor and Gamble Food Division, Memphis, Tennessee. Subsequently, Mercury Motor Freight, Inc. of Memphis, Tennessee, was contacted to deliver the Crisco shipment destined for Affiliated. On December 23, 1974, a driver named Hicks, employed by Mercury Motor Freight, made the delivery to Affiliated. Two employees of Affiliated, Garrison and Boyd, left 100 cases of Crisco on the truck. After leaving Affiliated with the Crisco, Hicks drove to a cafe where he met Wiesle. Wiesle was also employed by Mercury Motor Freight as a truck driver. From there the Crisco was delivered to a dock where it was later picked up by a new purchaser. An envelope containing a $1200 check and addressed to Hicks was left at the dock. Wiesle received his share of the proceeds of the Crisco sale in cash from Hicks. Garrison and Boyd went to Wiesle's home where they were paid for their part in the theft. Testimony also revealed that Wiesle had contacted two government witnesses prior to trial in an effort to persuade them to change or alter their testimony.

Appellant offered testimony of two warehouse employees, both of whom testified that Wiesle had been at work with them during the time he was said to be with Hicks and delivering the Crisco to the dock. The defense also introduced the time cards of Hicks and Wiesle as tending to show the location of Wiesle on this particular day.

While presenting the direct testimony of Boyd, the government's counsel asked him if he had pled guilty in federal district court to theft from an interstate shipment with regard to the Crisco. Boyd responded in the affirmative. During Hicks' direct testimony, the government's counsel also asked if he had pled guilty to theft from an interstate shipment. Hicks replied that he had and that he was now in the Springfield Medical Center for prisoners. Neither of these questions by the government's counsel was objected to by the appellant. In fact, both witnesses were cross-examined with respect to their guilty pleas in an effort to uncover any agreement between them and the United States Attorney with respect to recommendations as to leniency in exchange for their cooperation. After the government rested its case, the appellant moved for a mistrial based on the accomplices' testimony that they had pled guilty to the same offense for which Wiesle was being tried. The motion was denied.

One person's guilty plea or conviction may not be used as substantive evidence of the guilt of another. See Gerberding v. United States, 471 F.2d 55, 60 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • U.S. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • December 16, 2005
    ...as substantive evidence of the guilt of another." United States v. Roth, 736 F.2d 1222, 1226 (8th Cir.1984) (citing United States v. Wiesle, 542 F.2d 61, 62 (8th Cir.1976)). As this court observed in its March 10, 2005, ruling, the rule excluding evidence of a codefendant's guilty plea or c......
  • Sharkey v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 28, 2019
    ...Medley , 913 F.2d 1248, 1257-58 (7th Cir. 1990) ; United States v. Davis , 766 F.2d 1452, 1456 (10th Cir. 1985) ; United States v. Wiesle , 542 F.2d 61, 62-63 (8th Cir. 1976) ; People v. Brunner , 797 P.2d 788, 789 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990) ; State v. Padgett , 410 N.W.2d 143, 146 (N.D. 1987) )......
  • U.S. v. Kroh
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • September 12, 1990
    ...evidence of the defendant's guilt. See, e.g., United States v. Dworken, 855 F.2d 12, 30-31 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Wiesle, 542 F.2d 61, 62 (8th Cir.1976). When the prejudice to the defendant may be great, such as in the case of a guilty plea of a co-conspirator, the law requires ad......
  • Wallace v. Lockhart
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 7, 1983
    ...We recognize that one person's conviction may not be admitted as substantive evidence of the guilt of another. See United States v. Wiesle, 542 F.2d 61, 62 (8th Cir.1976); Bisaccia v. Attorney General, 623 F.2d 307, 312 (3d Cir.1980); United States v. Baete, 414 F.2d 782, 783 (5th Cir.1969)......
  • 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