United States v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 07 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1464.,71-1464. |
| Citation | 455 F.2d 930 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beverly J. ROBERTS, a/k/a Beverly Matthews, Defendant-Appellant. |
Edward R. Kirkland, Orlando, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Orlando, Fla., Bernard H. Dempsey, Jr., Tampa, Fla., Claude H. Tison, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
Certiorari Dismissed April 7, 1972. See 92 S.Ct. 1331.
Defendant Beverly J. Roberts was convicted on two counts charging perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621, relative to testimony which she gave before a federal grand jury.
The grand jury before which appellant testified indicted Harlan A. Blackburn on a charge of use of facilities of interstate commerce in furtherance of an illegal gambling enterprise. At Blackburn's trial a question arose as to whether the Jencks Act (18 U.S.C. § 3500) applied to certain FBI investigative reports containing memoranda of interviews by FBI agents with Mc-Cormick, a paid informer and the Government's principal witness. The trial court in that case conducted an extensive hearing and refused to require production of the reports after McCormick had completed his direct testimony. On appeal this Court affirmed, United States v. Blackburn, 5 Cir., 1971, 446 F.2d 1089, pointing out that the FBI agent who interviewed McCormick would make notes of the conversation and return to his office and prepare a report containing his interpretation of the conversation. The reports did not quote Mc-Cormick directly and were never signed by or even shown to him. Accordingly, they were not producible under the Jencks Act.
The present case grows out of the same Blackburn gambling enterprise in Florida which consisted of illegal bookmaking and lottery activities. McCormick, the informer and star witness of the Government, testified against defendant Roberts as he had against Blackburn. His testimony as to the manner of taking of information by the FBI agent and the making of notes was the same in both cases. Both defense and Government counsel proffered to the trial judge here the transcript of proceedings in the prior Blackburn trial insofar as it pertained to the extensive hearing and testimony of McCormick and Agent Hafley in connection with the reports of interviews. Counsel for appellant Roberts was also counsel for Blackburn in the prior case. In this case the United States Attorney furnished defense counsel with copies of Agent Hafley's reports of interviews with McCormick insofar as they involved appellant Roberts. During the trial defense counsel again requested (as he had in the Blackburn case) that the Government produce under the Jencks Act, the reports of interviews between Agent Hafley and McCormick during the period of time McCormick was working with the FBI. These FBI reports...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Pacheco
...convicted of perjury as a result of certain testimony given in an effort to shield Blackburn in another prosecution. United States v. Roberts, 5 Cir., 1971, 455 F.2d 930. While the appeal from her perjury conviction was pending, Mrs. Matthews began supplying information about Blackburn's op......
-
United States v. Register
...the Jencks Act was not applicable. See Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 79 S.Ct. 1217, 3 L.Ed.2d 1287 (1959); United States v. Roberts, 455 F.2d 930 (5th Cir. 1972). Defendants also claimed that Richel's file contained Brady material in the form of prior inconsistent statements by Ma......
-
JH Rutter Rex Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. NLRB
...States, 1958, 360 U.S. 343, 79 S.Ct. 1217, 3 L.Ed.2d 1287; United States v. Blackburn, 5 Cir. 1971, 446 F.2d 1089; United States v. Roberts, 5 Cir. 1972, 455 F.2d 930. 13 Although the need to prevent inhibition of employee testimony is not quite as great in a back-pay interview as it is in ......
-
United States v. Goodwin, 72-1882.
...Campbell v. United States, 1961, 365 U. S. 85, 81 S.Ct. 421, 5 L.Ed.2d 428, is this material discoverable. See, e. g., United States v. Roberts, 5 Cir. 1971, 455 F.2d 930. Appellants' third argument is that they were prejudiced by the erroneous introduction of certain evidence. Specifically......