United States v. Earl J. Miller, Also Known as James Earl Miller

38 F.3d 610, 1994 WL 511231
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedSeptember 9, 1994
Docket94-3007
StatusUnpublished

This text of 38 F.3d 610 (United States v. Earl J. Miller, Also Known as James Earl Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. 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. Earl J. Miller, Also Known as James Earl Miller, 38 F.3d 610, 1994 WL 511231 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Opinion

38 F.3d 610

309 U.S.App.D.C. 35

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Earl J. MILLER, also known as James Earl Miller, Appellant.

No. 94-3007.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Sept. 9, 1994.

Before: BUCKLEY, HENDERSON and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the conviction from which this appeal has been taken be affirmed.

The district court possessed wide discretion to limit appellant's cross-examination of Detective Hairston to matters within the scope of the direct examination and to matters which the court deemed probative of credibility. See United States v. Hodge, 19 F.3d 51, 52-53 (D.C.Cir.1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting appellant from cross-examining Detective Hairston about his testimony in a prior case.

Furthermore, the district court was not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence in conducting the hearing on appellant's motion to suppress tangible evidence and statements. See Fed.R.Evid. 1101(d)(1) and 104(a); see also United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 173-75 (1973) and Hodge, 19 F.3d at 53.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 41.

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

Related

United States v. Matlock
415 U.S. 164 (Supreme Court, 1974)
United States v. Ronald Hodge
19 F.3d 51 (D.C. Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Jamie Roberts
38 F.3d 610 (D.C. Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 F.3d 610, 1994 WL 511231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-earl-j-miller-also-known-as-james-earl-miller-cadc-1994.