United States v. Franklin Allen Paris

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Franklin Allen Paris

448 F.2d 1277, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7813

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 30, 1971

Docket71-1020

StatusPublished

This text of 448 F.2d 1277 (United States v. Franklin Allen Paris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Franklin Allen Paris, 448 F.2d 1277, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7813 (8th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a perjury conviction of Franklin Allen Paris in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The issue on appeal is whether false testimony on which the defendant’s conviction was based was 'material to the trial in which the defendant had previously testified. We affirm.

The facts surrounding the defendant’s testimony are fully set forth in this court’s recent opinion in United States v. Edwards, 443 F.2d 1286 (8 Cir. 1971). It is unnecessary to repeat them here. In that decision William Carey Edwards, Jr.’s conviction for perjury was affirmed. Edwards had falsely testified in the trial of Walter Patrick Peyson in December, 1969. Edwards was subsequently indicted for perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1621. At his trial he did not take the stand but called, as part of his defense, the defendant Paris who attempted to verify Edwards’ testimony in the Peyson trial. After Edwards’ conviction the government then indicted Paris for perjury. Discussion of the facts and the law in the Edwards case demonstrate without doubt the materiality of Paris’ testimony at the Edwards trial. If Paris’ statements were believed by the jury, Edwards would have been acquitted. Under these circumstances it is specious to urge that Paris’ testimony did not have an effective influence or bearing on the decision in the Edwards case.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a perjury conviction of Franklin Allen Paris in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The issue on appeal is whether false testimony on which the defendant’s conviction was based was 'material to the trial in which the defendant had previously testified. We affirm.

The facts surrounding the defendant’s testimony are fully set forth in this court’s recent opinion in United States v. Edwards, 443 F.2d 1286 (8 Cir. 1971). It is unnecessary to repeat them here. In that decision William Carey Edwards, Jr.’s conviction for perjury was affirmed. Edwards had falsely testified in the trial of Walter Patrick Peyson in December, 1969. Edwards was subsequently indicted for perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1621. At his trial he did not take the stand but called, as part of his defense, the defendant Paris who attempted to verify Edwards’ testimony in the Peyson trial. After Edwards’ conviction the government then indicted Paris for perjury. Discussion of the facts and the law in the Edwards case demonstrate without doubt the materiality of Paris’ testimony at the Edwards trial. If Paris’ statements were believed by the jury, Edwards would have been acquitted. Under these circumstances it is specious to urge that Paris’ testimony did not have an effective influence or bearing on the decision in the Edwards case.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 F.2d 1277, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-franklin-allen-paris-ca8-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack