UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
RANSOM PATRICK CROSS, 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 insufficient evidence supported the conviction on Count I, requiring a judgment of acquittal, and that erroneous references to other charges necessitated reversal and a new trial on Count II.
The defendant was convicted on two counts. The panel initially reversed the conviction on Count I due to insufficient evidence. The defendant sought 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 Judgment Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In the panel opinion, we held there was insufficient evidence, as a matter of law, to support the conviction on Count I. We reversed the conviction and remanded the case to the district court. Citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), Cross now argues that this Court should direct a judgment of acquittal. We agree. Therefore, we order that a judgment of acquittal be entered on Count I of the indictment.
Cross also claims that the panel incorrectly concluded that the erroneous references to other charges, in light of the evidence supporting the conviction and the curative instruction given the jury, were harmless. We noted in the opinion that the government’s claim of harmless error must travel uphill. We have carefully reconsidered the evidence adduced in support of Count II of the indictment. While the F.B.I. agent’s testimony was plainly sufficient to support the conviction, it was far from “overwhelming.” We hold, therefore, that the district court’s error in admitting the repeated references to “other federal charges” necessitates reversal of the conviction on Count II and remand for a new trial.
The petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The panel opinion is MODIFIED. The con-. viction on both counts is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for entry of a judgment of acquittal on Count I and a new trial on Count II.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Farmer, 923 F.2d 1557 (11th Cir. 1991)
-
United States v. Solomon, 679 F.2d 1246 (8th Cir. 1982)
-
United States v. Walker, 839 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir. 1988)
Authorities Cited
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978)
- United States v. Ransom Patrick Cross, 638 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir. 1981)