Robert Lewis v. Howard Yeager, Principal Keeper of the New Jersey State Prison

Third Circuit

Robert Lewis v. Howard Yeager, Principal Keeper of the New Jersey State Prison

411 F.2d 414, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12214

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 27, 1969

Docket17347_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 411 F.2d 414 (Robert Lewis v. Howard Yeager, Principal Keeper of the New Jersey State Prison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Lewis v. Howard Yeager, Principal Keeper of the New Jersey State Prison, 411 F.2d 414, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12214 (3d Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

A state prisoner who is incarcerated for rape and other offenses has taken this appeal from an order of the district court denying him a writ of habeas corpus.

The appellant invokes the doctrine of Bruton v. United States, 1968, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, where the introduction of an incriminating extrajudicial statement of a co-defendant into evidence was held to be fundamentally unfair despite an accurate instruction to the jury specifying the limited purpose for which it could properly make use of the statement. However, the Bruton case is inapplicable to the facts of this case.

At the trial the appellant himself called as a witness in his defense an alleged confederate who thereupon gave testimony tending to exculpate the appellant. The prosecution was then permitted to impeach the witness by introducing into evidence his prior inconsistent statement incriminating the appellant. The court accurately instructed the jury concerning the limited permissible use of this statement for impeachment purposes. Since the appellant himself had created the occasion for the use of the incriminating prior statement of the alleged confederate and the appellant was permitted to cross-examine the witness about that statement, this case presents no such unfairness as was present in the Bruton case. Cf. United States v. Daniels, 6th Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 255.

We find no merit in any other contention of the appellant.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

A state prisoner who is incarcerated for rape and other offenses has taken this appeal from an order of the district court denying him a writ of habeas corpus.

The appellant invokes the doctrine of Bruton v. United States, 1968, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, where the introduction of an incriminating extrajudicial statement of a co-defendant into evidence was held to be fundamentally unfair despite an accurate instruction to the jury specifying the limited purpose for which it could properly make use of the statement. However, the Bruton case is inapplicable to the facts of this case.

At the trial the appellant himself called as a witness in his defense an alleged confederate who thereupon gave testimony tending to exculpate the appellant. The prosecution was then permitted to impeach the witness by introducing into evidence his prior inconsistent statement incriminating the appellant. The court accurately instructed the jury concerning the limited permissible use of this statement for impeachment purposes. Since the appellant himself had created the occasion for the use of the incriminating prior statement of the alleged confederate and the appellant was permitted to cross-examine the witness about that statement, this case presents no such unfairness as was present in the Bruton case. Cf. United States v. Daniels, 6th Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 255.

We find no merit in any other contention of the appellant.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 F.2d 414, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-lewis-v-howard-yeager-principal-keeper-of-the-new-jersey-state-ca3-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack