UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JAMES R. TOLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's failure to deny filing a false report was not a comment on the defendant's failure to testify, and thus not prejudicial error.
The defendant was convicted of filing a false medical report in connection with a Social Security benefits claim. During closing arguments, the prosec…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Comment On Failure To Testify cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
James R. Toler was charged in an information with violating 42 U.S.C.A. § 408(c) by filing a false medical report in connection with a claim for Social Security benefits. Following a jury trial in the District Court he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year. In reviewing the facts linking the defendant with the report the prosecutor in closing rebuttal argument said — without objection of any kind — that “at no time has he denied filing it.” Toler now urges for the first time that this remark constitutes prejudicial error since the jury could have construed it as a comment on the failure of the defendant to testify in his own behalf. We disagree with this contention and affirm.
The uneontradicted testimony of the investigator who questioned Toler before the trial — under circumstances to which no criticism has been urged — was categorical that he admitted having sent the spurious document to both the regional office and the hearing examiner who reviewed his claim. Rather than denying at that time the submission of the medical report proved independently to have been false, he admitted it. Under such circumstances the government was justified in refuting the defense contention that there was nothing to connect the defendant with the report by commenting, not on defendant’s failure to testify, but rather on the uncontradicted state of the evidence. United States v. Cerullo, 5 Cir., 1970, 435 F. 2d 142; Samuels v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 398 F. 2d 964, cert. denied, 1969, 393 U.S. 1021, 89 S.Ct. 630, 21 L.Ed.2d 566; Davis v. United States, 5 Cir., 1966, 357 F. 2d 438, cert. denied, 1966, 385 U.S. 927, 87 S.Ct. 284, 17 L.Ed.2d 210 and cases cited therein.
Moreover, if — and the if is a very big one — this was such a comment, his failure to object to the remark at the trial when the Judge could have taken effective corrective action leaves him in the predicament of demonstrating it was so palpably flagrant as to affect his substantial rights and constitute plain error under F.R.Crim.P. 52(b). We cannot characterize it as such, particularly in light of the trial court’s'unequivocal positive instruction to the jury that they could in no -way take into account the failure of the defendant to testify.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Louin Ray Bright, 630 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1980)
-
United States v. Rochan, 563 F.2d 1246 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. White, 444 F.2d 1274 (5th Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Samuels v. United States, 398 F.2d 964 (5th Cir. 1968)
- City of Miami Beach v. Kugel et ux., 393 U.S. 1021 (U.S. 1969)
- Zakutansky v. United States, 393 U.S. 1021 (U.S. 1969)
- Davis v. United States, 357 F.2d 438 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Boutilier v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 385 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1966)
- United States v. Cerullo, 435 F.2d 142 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Udall v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 385 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1966)