United States v. Pearson
| Decision Date | 30 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 15618.,15618. |
| Citation | 344 F.2d 430 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theresa PEARSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
John D. O'Connell, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
George A. Googasian, 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 GRAY, District Judge.
Appellant was convicted of violation of the laws pertaining to the possession and sale of narcotics. Her appeal presents two questions: (1) the admissibility of evidence that she remained silent when accusatory statements were made to her by a government agent, and (2) the admissibility of evidence of prior similar offenses.
Although both parties have treated the second of these questions as properly before the court, it does not appear from the record that any objection was entered at the time this evidence was offered. This question, therefore, need not be considered.
With reference to the first question, it appears that Ernest J. Marquardt, a Federal narcotics agent, in his testimony for the government, stated that during the latter part of 1962 he had a conversation with the defendant in which he told her that he knew she had been engaged in the illicit heroin traffic since 1959 and that her source of supply for the drug was her sister; that defendant merely replied that her sister would not talk with her.
This testimony followed a ruling by the trial court that the testimony was admissible after objection had been made to it. During argument on the objection and in the presence of the jury, the assistant United States Attorney stated that the purpose of the offered testimony was to show that defendant made no denial and that such silence might properly be proved. Following this argument and further argument in the absence of the jury the court overruled the objection and the testimony above related was given.
The conversation related occurred many months after indictment and in the absence of counsel for defendant.
We believe that the admission of this testimony was prejudicial error. In McCarthy v. United States, 25 F.2d 298 (6th Cir. 1928) this court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cockrell
...of his privilege against self-incrimination. (E. g. Ivey v. United States (1965) 5 Cir., 344 F.2d 770, 772-773; United States v. Pearson (1965) 6 Cir., 344 F.2d 430, 431; Helton v. United States (1955) 221 F.2d 338, 341-342; McCarthy v. United States (1928) 6 Cir., 25 F.2d 298, 299.) Pearso......
-
People v. Gaines
...circumstances, to draw a derogatory inference from mere silence is to compel the respondent to testify; . . .' " (United States v. Pearson (6th Cir. 1965) 344 F.2d 430, 431; McCarthy v. United States, supra, p. These latter federal holdings were expressly approved by California's Supreme Co......
-
State v. Shing
...is to compel the respondent to testify; * * *.' McCarthy v. United States, 25 F.2d 298, 299 (6th Cir. 1928); United States v. Pearson, 344 F.2d 430, 431 (6th Cir. 1965). See also People v. Cockrell, 63 Cal.2d 659, 47 Cal.Rptr. 788, 408 P.2d 116 (1965). To hold that defendant may, after bein......
-
State v. Greer
...396 U.S. 1023, 90 S.Ct. 597, 24 L.Ed.2d 516 (1970); State v. Villalobos, 6 Ariz.App. 144, 430 P.2d 723 (1967); United States v. Pearson, 344 F.2d 430 (6th Cir. 1965). We said in our original opinion, 16 Ariz.App. 156, 492 P.2d 36, that defendant had every right to remain silent while in cus......