United States v. Joseph, 15685.
| Citation | 333 F.2d 1012 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 15685.,15685. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moses JOSEPH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
George S. Fitzgerald, Detroit, Mich. (Paul B. Mayrand, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.
Paul J. Komives, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich. (Lawrence Gubow, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, and BROWN, District Judge.
Moses Joseph, the defendant-appellant, was convicted under an indictment in which he was charged with violating Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001 in that he knowingly and wilfully made a false statement in an application for a radiotelephone operator's permit to the Federal Communications Commission. Specifically, it was charged that he, wilfully and knowingly, falsely answered "No" to a question inquiring as to the existence of a past criminal record.
Defendant, represented by retained counsel, waived a trial by jury. The Government opened its case by offering in evidence the application purporting to be signed by defendant and certified copies of two prior state court judgments of conviction of crimes. These exhibits were received in evidence without objection, after which Government counsel indicated that the exhibits related to defendant, to which defendant's counsel agreed. The Government then introduced certain other evidence, unimportant here, and rested.
Defendant then testified in his own behalf that he did execute the application and that the judgments of conviction did relate to him, but testified that he did not make the false statement wilfully and knowingly in that he misunderstood the question and was acting in good faith.
The trial court found defendant guilty.
Defendant first contends that the receipt in evidence of the exhibits without authentication by witnesses, though without objection, and the stipulation by his counsel that the exhibits related to defendant deprived him of his 6th Amendment right to be confronted by witnesses.
The answer to this contention is that this right may be effectively waived by counsel in open court in the presence of an accused who indicates no dissent. Cruzado v. People, 210 F.2d 789 (C.A.1, 1954); Fukunaga v. Territory of Hawaii, 33 F.2d 396 (C.A.9, 1929), cert. denied 280 U.S. 593, 50 S.Ct. 39, 74 L.Ed. 641 (1929).
Defendant also assigns error on the ground that, he contends, there must be evidence establishing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tribble
...made as a matter of trial tactics and strategy, attorney's stipulation on behalf of defendant was valid); United States v. Joseph, 333 F.2d 1012, 1013 (6th Cir.1964) (“[Confrontation] right may be effectively waived by counsel in open court in the presence of [a defendant] who indicates no ......
-
Buie v. Rivard
...confrontation rights), particularly where the waiver occurs in open court and the defendant does not object. See United States v. Joseph, 333 F.2d 1012, 1013 (6th Cir. 1964);see also United States v. Chun Ya Cheung, 350 F. App'x 19, 21-22 (6th Cir. 2009). Citing Coy and Craig, as well as Ol......
-
Deblase v. State
...of defendant and without his objection, and the decision to stipulate was a matter of trial tactics and strategy); United States v. Joseph, 333 F.2d 1012, 1013 (6th Cir. 1964) (right to confrontation may be effectively waived by defense counsel in open court in the presence of the defendant......
-
People v. Buie
...Stephens, 609 F.2d 230, 232–233 (C.A.5, 1980); United States v. Reveles, 190 F.3d 678, 683 n. 6 (C.A.5, 1999); United States v. Joseph, 333 F.2d 1012, 1013 (C.A.6, 1964); United States v. Cooper, 243 F.3d 411, 418 (C.A.7, 2001) (“The majority of circuits that have addressed this question ha......