United States v. Bates, B/O 7009.
| Decision Date | 14 August 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. B/O 7009.,B/O 7009. |
| Citation | 287 F. Supp. 657 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Earl BATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Thomas A. Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.
Marvin Berke, Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant.
This case is before the Court upon an appeal from certain rulings of the United States Commissioner made in the course of a preliminary hearing. The defendant contends that the following errors were made in the conduct of the preliminary hearing: (1) that he was denied the right to place witnesses upon the witness stand and (2) that in the course of cross-examination the government witness was permitted by the Commissioner to confer with the United States Attorney, to interpose objections, and was not required to answer certain questions, thereby denying the defendant effective cross-examination of the government witness.
A transcript of the proceedings before the United States Commissioner on the preliminary hearing has now been filed in the record. The following matters appear from this transcript. The defendant, Earl Bates, was arrested by federal ATU agents upon the morning of July 17, 1968. At 3:00 P.M. on that date he appeared before United States Commissioner Charles J. Gearhiser represented by retained legal counsel and was duly arraigned. He requested an immediate preliminary hearing. At that stage of the proceedings the only government representatives at the hearing were two ATU agents, Mr. Lawhorn and Mr. Sampley, no representative of the United States Attorney's office being present. Mr. Lawhorn stated on behalf of the Government that Mr. Sampley would be offered as the only government witness. Counsel for the defendant thereupon stated that he would desire to have Mr. Lawhorn also called as a witness. Upon this statement being made, Mr. Lawhorn advised that Mr. Sampley would not be called and that he would himself be the only government witness to testify. The defendant's attorney announced that in that event he would expect to call Mr. Sampley for examination. Mr. Lawhorn objected to both himself and Agent Sampley being called as witnesses and stated that in that event the Government would offer no witnesses. At this point the United States Commissioner requested an Assistant United States Attorney to be called to the hearing to represent the Government and this was done. Counsel for the Government then objected to the defendant being permitted to call both ATU agents for examination upon the ground that it was an attempt upon the part of the defendant to improperly obtain discovery of the government witnesses. The United States Commissioner, after making a finding that the purpose of counsel for the defendant in seeking to call both government agents was to obtain discovery and not to further the purpose of ascertaining whether probable cause existed for binding the defendant over to the grand jury, concluded that the defendant should not be permitted to call the government agent as a witness. All parties then agreed to proceed with the preliminary hearing after reaching the understanding that the defendant would appeal the Commissioner's ruling in regard to his right to call Agent Sampley as a witness. Agent Lawhorn then testified as a government witness and was cross-examined by counsel for the defendant. At the outset of the cross-examination, the examination was interrupted at the request of the witness to permit the witness to confer with the United States Attorney. Upon one or more occasions the witness himself objected to questions asked of him, as, for example, when he was asked a question in regard to an informant. The Commissioner ruled upon these objections, sustaining the objection with regard to disclosure of the identity of the informant, but instructing the witness to leave the matter of making objections to the government counsel and not to interpose objections himself. Counsel for the Government interposed numerous objections which for the most part were overruled by the Commissioner. The hearing concluded with the examination and cross-examination of Mr. Lawhorn. The Commissioner, finding probable cause, bound the defendant over and granted bail bond without surety. The present appeal comes before this Court upon the above state of the record.
Although it is stated broadly in the defendant's initial ground for appeal that he was denied the right to call witnesses during the preliminary hearing, more correctly stated the issue is whether the Commissioner was in error under the circumstances reflected in the record in denying the defendant the right to call Federal Agent Sampley for examination. The defendant neither offered nor requested to examine any other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garcia v. State
...cross-examine witnesses confers an absolute right to cross-examine witnesses upon anything and everything * * *." United States v. Bates, 287 F.Supp. 657, 660 (E.D.Tenn.1968). See also, United States v. Wilkins, 422 F.Supp. 1371 (E.D.Pa.1976), affirmed 547 F.2d 1166 (3rd Cir.1976); Rex v. S......
-
Coleman v. Burnett
...795-798 & n. 4 (1965). 82 See text supra at note 74. 83 See note 47, supra, and text supra following note 47. 84 United States v. Bates, 287 F.Supp. 657, 660-661 (E.D.Tenn.1968). 85 Id. 86 Laughlin v. Reynolds, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 414, 415, 196 F.2d 863, 864 (1952); Chapman v. Santa Fe Pac. R.R......
-
State v. Womack
...would "negate probable cause" if not permitted to interrogate the witness. Equally unacceptable is the holding of United States v. Bates, 287 F.Supp. 657 (E.D.Tenn.1968), cited by appellant, that an accused may be denied the presence of a material witness merely because the magistrate conce......
-
United States v. Coley
...evaluation of probable cause, such discovery remains incidental to the true purpose of the proceeding. See United States v. Bates, E.D.Tenn.1968, 287 F. Supp. 657, 660. Indeed, as District Judge Wilson has ably The primary function of the preliminary hearing should remain the determination ......