United States v. Bryant Oscar Pearce

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Bryant Oscar Pearce

412 F.2d 895, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11486

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 15, 1969

Docket13083_1

StatusPublished

This text of 412 F.2d 895 (United States v. Bryant Oscar Pearce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bryant Oscar Pearce, 412 F.2d 895, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11486 (4th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Bryant Oscar Pearce was indicted in eight counts, and other defendants were named in these and additional counts, for counterfeiting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 471-474, aiding and abetting therein, 18 U.S.C. § 2, and conspiring to commit the offenses, 18 U.S.C. § 371. In a separate trial with a jury waived, Pearce was convicted on five counts and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. An acquittal was ordered on two counts, and a third was dropped. Appealing, Pearce argues failure of proof of guilt and ineffective assistance of counsel. These assignments are not substantiated by the record.

Four of the five co-defendants testified at his trial. Each of these witnesses had earlier pleaded guilty to a single count and not guilty to the remainder. Sentencing of these four was postponed until after Pearce’s trial, and then the Government dismissed the other counts.

Granting that “the testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to sustain a conviction even though not corroborated, if it generates a belief beyond a reasonable doubt,” United States v. Maddox, 394 F.2d 297, 299 (4 Cir. 1968), the appellant insists that the co-defendants’ evidence was inherently untrustworthy, for this: they were testifying while themselves under indictment, their statements were contradictory and, at times, inconsistent, and the principal witness was a drug addict. The Government, on the other hand stresses that corroboration was adduced on each count. We see evidence aplenty warranting the District Judge’s findings of guilt.

*896 Cross-examination of the four co-defendants testifying against Pearce could have been more exhaustive, but it was not so lacking as to render Pearce’s representation insufficient in law. Cf. Root v. Cunningham, 344 F.2d 1, 3 (4 Cir. 1964), cert. denied 382 U.S. 866, 86 S.Ct. 135, 15 L.Ed.2d 104 (1966).

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Bryant Oscar Pearce was indicted in eight counts, and other defendants were named in these and additional counts, for counterfeiting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 471-474, aiding and abetting therein, 18 U.S.C. § 2, and conspiring to commit the offenses, 18 U.S.C. § 371. In a separate trial with a jury waived, Pearce was convicted on five counts and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. An acquittal was ordered on two counts, and a third was dropped. Appealing, Pearce argues failure of proof of guilt and ineffective assistance of counsel. These assignments are not substantiated by the record.

Four of the five co-defendants testified at his trial. Each of these witnesses had earlier pleaded guilty to a single count and not guilty to the remainder. Sentencing of these four was postponed until after Pearce’s trial, and then the Government dismissed the other counts.

Granting that “the testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to sustain a conviction even though not corroborated, if it generates a belief beyond a reasonable doubt,” United States v. Maddox, 394 F.2d 297, 299 (4 Cir. 1968), the appellant insists that the co-defendants’ evidence was inherently untrustworthy, for this: they were testifying while themselves under indictment, their statements were contradictory and, at times, inconsistent, and the principal witness was a drug addict. The Government, on the other hand stresses that corroboration was adduced on each count. We see evidence aplenty warranting the District Judge’s findings of guilt.

*896 Cross-examination of the four co-defendants testifying against Pearce could have been more exhaustive, but it was not so lacking as to render Pearce’s representation insufficient in law. Cf. Root v. Cunningham, 344 F.2d 1, 3 (4 Cir. 1964), cert. denied 382 U.S. 866, 86 S.Ct. 135, 15 L.Ed.2d 104 (1966).

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 F.2d 895, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bryant-oscar-pearce-ca4-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack