United States v. Jerry Buchanan and Frank Anthony Fiorini, A/K/A Frank Sturgis

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Jerry Buchanan and Frank Anthony Fiorini, A/K/A Frank Sturgis

500 F.2d 398, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6893

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 12, 1974

Docket398

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 500 F.2d 398 (United States v. Jerry Buchanan and Frank Anthony Fiorini, A/K/A Frank Sturgis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Jerry Buchanan and Frank Anthony Fiorini, A/K/A Frank Sturgis, 500 F.2d 398, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6893 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal from their convictions for transportation of stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312, 2313, § 2, appellants allege that the evidence against them was insufficient and that their Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation of witnesses against them were denied. We find these contentions to be without merit and affirm the convictions.

Appellants allege they were training members of the International Anti-Communist Brigade for an invasion of Cuba. The government’s theory was that this was just a guise to hide a conspiracy to transport stolen motor vehicles into Mexico. Taking the view most favorable to the government, a reasonably minded jury could accept the relevant evidence as sufficient to support appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Warner, 5 Cir., 1971, 441 F.2d 821.

Appellants’ other contentions deal with the cross-examination of the *399 final witness at trial, Agent Gibbons of the FBI. Gibbons’ direct testimony dealt exclusively with another defendant, Gonzales, except for a reference to appellant Sturgis as the leader of the brigade. On cross-examination, appellant’s counsel sought to elicite testimony about a statement given to Gibbons by Sturgis, This question was ruled beyond the scope of direct examination.

The fact that Sturgis was the leader of the brigade had already been established by other witnesses Appellant’s contentions that he was denied the right to confrontation are without merit. He could have called the agent as his own witness, or taken the stand himself on this point. Any prejudice that might have resulted was harmless. See United States v. Resnick, 5 Cir., 1974, 488 F.2d 1165 at 1168 quoting from Kotteakos v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 10 L.Ed. 1557.

Affirmed.

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