United States v. Binger
| Decision Date | 24 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2236.,71-2236. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian BINGER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Leonard W. Moen (argued), Quinby R. Bingham, Tacoma, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
Jerald E. Olson, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Charles Pinnell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON,* District Judge.
Brian Binger was convicted by a jury of the illegal transfer of opium and appeals. Count I charged the illegal distribution of 1.7 grams of opium without the required Treasury stamp, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a). Counts II, III and IV charged the illegal distribution and sale of 2.1 pounds of opium, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174, 26 U.S.C. §§ 4704(a) and 4705(a). We affirm.
Binger asserts several errors, only one of which merits discussion.
The indictment originally charged Binger and three other persons. Before Binger's trial, all three, including a Vernon Rose, pleaded guilty to count III. Binger called Rose to testify as a defense witness to corroborate Binger's defense that he did not know the others were engaged in selling opium to an undercover agent.
After the prosecutor had cross-examined Rose, the district judge, on his own initiative, excused the jury and talked to counsel about Rose's plea of guilty to count III. After some discussion, the judge stated to the prosecutor:
Defense counsel's objection was overruled. The jury returned and the prosecutor again questioned Rose, who admitted that he had pleaded guilty to the same count for which Binger was being tried.
In Baker v. United States, 393 F.2d 604, 614 (9th Cir. 1968), we held that the government may not ask a co-conspirator whether he pleaded guilty to one of the substantive counts for which the defendant was then being tried.
If Binger's counsel had first asked Rose on direct examination about his plea, evidence of Rose's plea would have been proper impeachment. Once a defendant opens the door to a crime partner's guilty plea, the government may then ask about the charge to which he pleaded. Isaac v. United States, 431 F.2d 11, 15 (9th Cir. 1970). Isaac is not applicable here. Binger's counsel restricted his questioning to specific factual events to avoid the possibility of the witness perjuring himself. Defense counsel did not open the door to more than the details of the crime.
There is real danger that jurors will give undue emphasis to a crime-partner's guilty plea. It impinges on a defendant's right to be tried solely on the evidence. This court has held that the danger may be averted and the error cured by a cautionary instruction to consider a crime partner's guilty plea solely to assess his credibility as a witness and not to prove the defendant's participation in the crime. Baker v. United States, supra, 393 F.2d at 614.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Halbert
...1230; United States v. Bryza, 522 F.2d 414, 424-25 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. King, supra, 505 F.2d at 602; United States v. Binger, 469 F.2d 275, 276 (9th Cir. 1972); Isaac v. United States, supra, 431 F.2d at 11; Baker v. United States, supra, 393 F.2d at 614. It is manifestly appa......
-
U.S. v. Barber
...was relevant and proper, in light of Barber's earnest endeavor to establish lack of harm to the companies. See United States v. Binger, 469 F.2d 275 (9th Cir.1972).6 Fed.R.Evid. 606(b) provides that a juror may not impeach the jury's verdict by testifying "as to any matter or statement occu......
-
Com. v. Cresta
...and the judge properly did not want the defendant's case 'infected with any mention of any prior trials.' See United States v. Binger, 469 F.2d 275, 276 (9th Cir. 1972), and United States v. Davis, 487 F.2d 112, 120 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. den., 415 U.S. 981, 94 S.Ct. 1573, 39 L.Ed.2d 878 Fo......
-
Milton v. Janda
...the performance standard of Strickland "as of the time of counsel's conduct."); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. Citing United States v. Binger, 469 F.2d 275, 276 (9th Cir. 1972), Petitioner argues that the limiting instructions given by the trial court were insufficient because they failed spe......