United States v. Leggett

• Decision Date: 07 January 1964
• Docket Number: No. 8992.,8992.
• Citation: 326 F.2d 613
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Clarence Gene LEGGETT, alias Clarence Eugene Leggett alias Gene Leggett, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

326 F.2d 613 (1964)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Clarence Gene LEGGETT, alias Clarence Eugene Leggett alias Gene Leggett, Appellant.

No. 8992.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued November 19, 1963.

Decided January 7, 1964.

Daniel R. Dixon, Raleigh, N. C., for appellant.

Gerald L. Bass, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Robert H. Cowen, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges, and FIELD, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant-appellant was charged in a three count indictment for violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 912, by pretending to be an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and acting as such, and in such pretended character demanding and obtaining from one, Archie Burrus, certain guest registration cards of a motel operated by Burrus.

At the beginning of the trial, counsel for the defendant moved for the exclusion or sequestration of witnesses which motion was granted. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and thereafter defendant moved to set the verdict aside on the ground that the Assistant United States Attorney had violated the order of the court by leaving the courtroom and conferring with Charles W. Miller, an F.B.I. agent and government witness, during the time that Burrus, the first government witness, was being cross-examined. After a hearing the district judge denied the motion and this appeal followed.

The purpose of the exclusion rule is, of course, to prevent the possibility of one witness shaping his testimony to match that given by other witnesses at the trial;¹ and if a witness violates the order he may be disciplined by the court. The question of the exclusion of the testimony of the offending witness, however, depends upon the particular circumstances and lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); Coates v. United States, 59 F.2d 173 (9th Cir. 1932).

From the record it appears that at the time of the incident of which appellant complains, Burrus was being cross-examined in regard to his acquaintance and contact with the agent Miller whom he apparently had known for some time prior to September 10, 1961, the date of the alleged offense. In response to a question Burrus stated that he had never looked at Miller's F.B.I. credentials. At this juncture the Assistant United States Attorney left the courtroom and sought out Miller for the purpose of obtaining Miller's credentials for...