United States v. Darrell Shea

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Darrell Shea

445 F.2d 856, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9113

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 7, 1971

Docket22852

StatusPublished

This text of 445 F.2d 856 (United States v. Darrell Shea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Darrell Shea, 445 F.2d 856, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9113 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Supplemental Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Previously, we remanded this case to the district court with instructions to hold a hearing on the existing record in order to determine whether the defense’s failure to cross-examine a prosecution witness was harmless. United States v. Shea, 436 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1970).

Upon remand, the district judge considered the memoranda of counsel and all the files and records in the cause and then entered findings of fact and conclusions of law determining that the failure of appellant’s counsel to cross-examine the witness was completely harmless. He found that the witness was thoroughly cross-examined by the attorneys for appellant’s co-defendant and that further questioning by appellant’s attorney might only have brought out other evidence detrimental to appellant. By avoiding cross-examination, the court found, appellant’s attorney limited the testimony of the witness against his client to the bare statement that appellant had been sent to Rio de Janeiro, which fact had been independently established by other evidence.

Based upon its findings, the court concluded that cross-examination was unnecessary and that, even if the failure to cross-examine did constitute error, such error did not affect appellant’s substantial rights and was, therefore, harmless under Rule 52(a), F.R.Crim.P. We agree.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

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

Supplemental Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Previously, we remanded this case to the district court with instructions to hold a hearing on the existing record in order to determine whether the defense’s failure to cross-examine a prosecution witness was harmless. United States v. Shea, 436 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1970).

Upon remand, the district judge considered the memoranda of counsel and all the files and records in the cause and then entered findings of fact and conclusions of law determining that the failure of appellant’s counsel to cross-examine the witness was completely harmless. He found that the witness was thoroughly cross-examined by the attorneys for appellant’s co-defendant and that further questioning by appellant’s attorney might only have brought out other evidence detrimental to appellant. By avoiding cross-examination, the court found, appellant’s attorney limited the testimony of the witness against his client to the bare statement that appellant had been sent to Rio de Janeiro, which fact had been independently established by other evidence.

Based upon its findings, the court concluded that cross-examination was unnecessary and that, even if the failure to cross-examine did constitute error, such error did not affect appellant’s substantial rights and was, therefore, harmless under Rule 52(a), F.R.Crim.P. We agree.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 F.2d 856, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-darrell-shea-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack