UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JERRY BUCHANAN AND FRANK ANTHONY FIORINI, A/K/A FRANK STURGIS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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 evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the appellants' Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation were not denied.
Appellants were convicted of transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce, allegedly as a guise for training members of an anti-communist…
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 Cross-Examination Scope cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal from their convictions for transportation of stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312, 2313, § 2, appellants allege that the evidence against them was insufficient and that their Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation of witnesses against them were denied. We find these contentions to be without merit and affirm the convictions.
Appellants allege they were training members of the International Anti-Communist Brigade for an invasion of Cuba. The government’s theory was that this was just a guise to hide a conspiracy to transport stolen motor vehicles into Mexico. Taking the view most favorable to the government, a reasonably minded jury could accept the relevant evidence as sufficient to support appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Warner, 5 Cir., 1971, 441 F. 2d 821.
Appellants’ other contentions deal with the cross-examination of the final witness at trial, Agent Gibbons of the FBI. Gibbons’ direct testimony dealt exclusively with another defendant, Gonzales, except for a reference to appellant Sturgis as the leader of the brigade. On cross-examination, appellant’s counsel sought to elicite testimony about a statement given to Gibbons by Sturgis, This question was ruled beyond the scope of direct examination.
The fact that Sturgis was the leader of the brigade had already been established by other witnesses Appellant’s contentions that he was denied the right to confrontation are without merit. He could have called the agent as his own witness, or taken the stand himself on this point. Any prejudice that might have resulted was harmless. See United States v. Resnick, 5 Cir., 1974, 488 F. 2d 1165 at 1168 quoting from Kotteakos v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 10 L.Ed. 1557.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Walker, 559 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
Jones v. Dugger, 928 F.2d 1020 (11th Cir. 1991)
-
United States v. Heverto Rene Ramirez, 533 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1976)
Authorities Cited
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Warner, 441 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Errol Bernard Resnick, 488 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1974)