UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT C. GANDY, SR., 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 evidence of prior consistent statements is admissible to rehabilitate a witness whose motive for testifying was questioned.
The defendant was convicted of selling counterfeit notes. The government rehabilitated its witness, Click, with evidence of prior consistent statement…
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 Rehabilitation Of Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-appellant Gandy appeals from a conviction of selling Cecil Leon Click five counterfeit federal reserve notes. 18 U.S.C. § 473. We affirm.
Gandy contends that the trial court erred in allowing the government to rehabilitate Click, who testified for the government, with evidence of prior consistent statements. On cross-examination of Click, defense counsel had attempted to impeach him by establishing that Click had a grudge against Gandy arising from an altercation between the two men in 1966. Gandy argues that because the prior consistent statements were made after this date, they were inadmissible. After Click’s motive in testifying as he did was put in issue by the defense, evidence of prior consistent statements and the circumstances under which they were made was relevant and proper to an evaluation of Click’s motive for making the statements. See United States v. Bays, 448 F. 2d 977, 979 (5th Cir., 1971); United States v. Stamey, 423 F. 2d 1223 (4th Cir., 1970); Copes v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 345 F. 2d 723 (1964). See also, United States v. Leggett, 312 F. 2d 566 (4th Cir., 1962).
We have considered appellant’s other argument and find it meritless. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Sterling Hamilton, 689 F.2d 1262 (6th Cir. 1982)
-
United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768 (4th Cir. 1983)
-
United States v. Rodriguez, 509 F.2d 1342 (5th Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Leggett, 312 F.2d 566 (4th Cir. 1962)
- United States v. Bays, 448 F.2d 977 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Clarice A. Copes v. United States, 345 F.2d 723 (D.C. Cir. 1964)
- United States v. Stamey, 423 F.2d 1223 (4th Cir. 1970)