United States v. Pledger
| Decision Date | 22 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 26483.,26483. |
| Citation | 409 F.2d 1335 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James R. PLEDGER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Buck C. Miller, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Morton L. Susman, United States Atty., Ronald J. Blask, Malcolm R. Dimmitt, James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges, and MITCHELL, District Judge.
Defendant-appellant, James R. Pledger, was found guilty by a jury of the offense of forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, and interfering with Robert J. Rayburn, a revenue officer of the Internal Revenue Service of the United States Treasury Department, knowing him to be such an officer, while he was engaged in the performance of his official duties, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 111.
Appellant contends that the District Court erred in permitting the government, during cross-examination, to ask him why he had not stated, at the time of the assault or his subsequent arrest, that he thought Agent Rayburn was a hijacker.
When an accused testifies voluntarily he waives his privilege against self incrimination, and his failure to deny or explain evidence against him, which he might naturally explain, is open to adverse inference.1 In Grunewald v. United States,2 the Supreme Court, although holding that the District Court had abused its discretion in admitting prior inconsistent statements of the defendant, held that the scope and latitude of cross-examination should be left to the discretion of the trial judge unless its probative value is far outweighed by the possibility that the jury might make impermissible use of the testimony. It does not appear that the District Court abused its discretion in admitting such evidence of appellant's failure to assert his alibi upon arrest.
Appellant further contends that the District Court erred in refusing to charge the jury that he had the right to use reasonable force in ejecting the agent when he remained on the appellant's property after having been requested to leave. However, it was a question of fact for the jury to decide as to whether the agent was performing his official duties at the time of the assault.3 The District Court properly charged the jury that they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the agent was engaged in the performance of his official duties at the time of the assault in order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v. United States
...U.S. 915, 77 S.Ct. 213, 1 L.Ed.2d 122. 17 282 U.S. 687, 694, 51 S.Ct. 218, 220, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931). See also: United States v. Pledger, 409 F.2d 1335, 1336 (5th Cir. 1969); Samuels v. United States, 398 F.2d 964, 970 (5th Cir. 1968); Jackson v. Beto, 388 F.2d 409, 411 (5th Cir. 1968); Huds......
-
Chapman v. U.S.
...right not to take the witness stand." 357 F.2d at 14. But see Sharp v. United States, 410 F.2d 969 (5th Cir. 1969); United States v. Pledger, 409 F.2d 1335 (5th Cir. 1969). These cases held it was not error to allow cross-examination of a defendant regarding his failure to offer an exculpat......
-
United States v. Woodall
...an unfavorable inference to be drawn from action which attempts to use privilege as a sword instead of a shield. In United States v. Pledger, 409 F.2d 1335 (5th Cir. 1969) we held that a defendant who chooses to waive the privilege against self-incrimination by taking the stand, but fails t......
-
Gilder v. State
...truthfully denied or explained the incriminating evidence against him, he would have done so.' 2 (Emphasis added) In United States v. Pledger, 409 F.2d 1335 (5th Cir. 1969), the Fifth Circuit affirmed a conviction where the defendant had assaulted an internal revenue service agent. The defe......
-
Nonproduction of Witnesses as Deliberative Evidence
...219 Kan. 218, 221, 547 P.2d 335, 338 (1976). 65. Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 494 (1917); United States v. Pledger, 409 F.2d 1335, 1336 (5th Cir. 1969). 66. Ford v. State, 184 Tenn. 443, 449, 201 S.W.2d 539, 541 (1945). See also State v. La Porte, 58 Wash. 2d 816, 365 P.2d 24 (......