CARL MCFADDEN, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
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 appeal is legally frivolous and dismissed it.
Petitioner appealed a district court ruling that denied his claim of perjured testimony by government witnesses. The court had previously considered a…
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 Recantation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Carl McFadden, has filed a motion in this court requesting that we order the clerk of the district court to loan petitioner the transcript of a hearing held pursuant to this court’s order in McFadden v. United States, No. 71-1397 (8th Cir., Sept. 30, 1971). In that case, the court directed the district court to hold a hearing, in conjunction with hearings ordered in cases involving petitioner’s codefendants, United States v. Stewart, No. 20,641 (8th Cir., Aug. 4, 1971), and Kibby v. United States, No. 71-1074 (8th Cir., Sept. 28, 1971), to determine whether petitioner was convicted through perjured testimony. The district court has held this hearing and has found petitioner’s contentions to be without merit. Petitioner has now appealed from that ruling.
Petitioner asserts that two government witnesses, Dudley Brown and Richard Patch, gave perjured testimony at his trial. This court considered a similar claim regarding these witnesses in United States v. Stewart, 445 F. 2d 897 (8th Cir. 1971). We are therefore familiar with petitioner’s claim, which rests upon a recanting statement made by Dudley Brown. Judge Harper found that neither Brown’s recanting statement nor Brown’s testimony at the hearing served to exculpate petitioner. Judge Harper said:
To summarize, in Brown’s statement to the narcotics agent and in his testimony at the hearing, Stewart is the only one he attempts to exculpate. His testimony is of no significance with respect to the allegations of perjury set out in the petition of McFadden.
Under these circumstances, petitioner cannot prevail on this appeal. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 9 of this court,1 we dismiss his appeal as legally frivolous.
. Rule 9 of this court provides :
If upon consideration of any interlocutory motion, or as a result of a review under Rule 6, it shall appear to the Court that the appeal is friviolous and entirely without merit, the appeal may be dismissed without the notice contemplated in Rule 8.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marrs v. State of Fla. & the Cir. Court of Pinellas Cnty., 382 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
-
McFADDEN v. United States, 489 F.2d 283 (8th Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Stewart, 445 F.2d 897 (8th Cir. 1971)