UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
IRA EUGENE WILLIAMS, JOHN THOMAS TAYLOR, JR., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

11th Cir. | 1983-10-07
No. 82-5971
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
716 F.2d 864 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 15 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Convicted of bank robbery, Williams and Taylor raise two issues on their appeals, neither of which requires reversal.

First, as to the district court’s sealing of the affidavits in support of a search warrant, the judge made a specific determination that the disclosure of any portion of the affidavit would reveal the identity of the confidential informants whose lives would then be in jeopardy. Giving full regard to: the fact that this issue involves a motion to suppress where the interests are of a lesser magnitude than those in the criminal trial itself, United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 679,100 S.Ct. 2406, 2414, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980); the in camera procedures followed by the district court which protected the interests here involved, Suarez v. United States, 582 F. 2d 1007, 1011-12 (5th Cir.1978); and the recent Supreme Court case which indicates a lessened chance of attacking a search warrant based on affidavits, Illinois v. Gates, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), balance to the issues here involved.

Second, we have repeatedly held that the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to interrogate jurors regarding alleged misconduct. United States v. Edwards, 696 F. 2d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1884, 76 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983); Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F. 2d 344, 347-48 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 953,100 S.Ct. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980); United States v. Chiantese, 582 F. 2d 974, 978-80 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979); United States v. Robbins, 500 F. 2d 650, 653 (5th Cir.1974). The district court was in the best, position to determine whether the facts reflected by counsel’s statement as to the jury’s discussion of the case prior to submission could be cured from error by instructions as given. The district court did not abuse its discretion.

AFFIRMED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1984)
    …duct, the decision whether to investigate rests in the sound discretion of the district court. See United States v. Barshov, 733 F. 2d 842, 850 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Lopez, 728 F. 2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Williams, 716 F. 2d 864, 865 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Edwards, 696 F. 2d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1884, 76 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983). In Edwards, the court observed: [T]his court has not imposed a stringent duty of investigation upon a di…
  • United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011)
    …es, and not from media publicity or other outside influences.” Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F. 2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.1980); see also Dominguez, 226 F. 3d at 1246; United States v. Cuthel, 903 F. 2d 1381, 1382 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. Williams, 716 F. 2d 864, 865 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Yonn, 702 F. 2d at 1344-45. This discretion extends to the initial decision whether to interrogate the juror(s) accused of improper communication. Cuthel, 903 F. 2d at 1382-83. Still, the court’s discretion is n…
  • United States v. Barshov, 733 F.2d 842 (11th Cir. 1984)
    …” The suspected prospective jur- or was ultimately excused by Barshov. We have repeatedly held that the district court is vested with broad discretion in deciding whether to interrogate jurors regarding alleged misconduct. United States v. Williams, 716 F. 2d 864, 865 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Chiantese, 582 F. 2d 974, 978-80 (5th Cir.1978), cert. de [*851] nied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). After examining the statements of counsel and the court during the hearing outside the…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (12 total)

View all 12 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw