UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN EARL PEEPER, 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 defendant waived his Sixth Amendment confrontation clause argument by failing to object to the admission of taped recordings, as his attorney made a tactical decision to allow their introduction.
Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. He appealed the introduction of taped telephone recordings made wi…
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 Tactical Decisions By Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute it (21 U.S.C. § 846). Given the presumptions available to the government, we have little hesitation in characterizing the evidence against appellant as “overwhelming.” Peeper argues, on appeal, that introduction of taped telephone recordings, made with a coconspirator’s knowledge, violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation as the coconspirator was not present and there was no showing by the government as to why he was unavailable. In making this argument appellant relies on Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980).
Appellant’s reliance is misplaced. At the trial his own attorney wished to utilize certain portions of the tapes which he believed were exculpatory. He could hardly object to the government’s use of other portions of those same tapes. As a result no objection was made to the introduction of the tapes and thus the issue of coconspirator hearsay and the issue of his unavailability never came up.
We are convinced on this record that the decision by appellant’s attorney not to object to the tapes was intentionally made for tactical purposes. As this is so, the claim of a violation of the Confrontation Clause is clearly without merit.
We are also convinced on this record that appellant received representation that was effective under the test of Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F. 2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1978).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1980)
- Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1978)