United States v. Robert Farias Riojas

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Robert Farias Riojas

642 F.2d 85, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20334

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 9, 1981

Docket80-1437

StatusPublished

This text of 642 F.2d 85 (United States v. Robert Farias Riojas) 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. Robert Farias Riojas, 642 F.2d 85, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20334 (5th Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Riojas pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 241 by conspiring with two correctional officers of the Bexar County jail in San Antonio, Texas, and others to deprive a prisoner in the jail of his constitutional right to be free from harm while in official custody. The conspiracy resulted in the murder of the prisoner.

It was charged that appellant paid the officers to move the prisoner into a cell *86 where appellant’s coconspirators could attack and kill him for appellant’s personal reasons. The two correctional officers of the jail which appellant was alleged to have bribed were acquitted upon trial.

Appellant now appeals his sentence on the ground that the acquittal of the two jail employees removed state action from the case and therefore there could be no federal offense under § 241.

This contention must fail. It is well established that the acquittal of coconspirators or coparticipants in a crime does not prove that the crime did not occur. Rosecrans v. United States, 378 F.2d 561, 567 (5th Cir. 1967). Nor does it bar the United States government from charging that appellant conspired with the acquitted state employees. Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 100 S.Ct. 1999, 64 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980).

Appellant pleaded guilty after a thorough hearing and under a plea bargain agreement. The acquittal of the two jailers, therefore, does not control his admission of guilt of the offense of conspiring with the two correctional officers and others to bring about the harm to the murdered prisoner. As Judge Phillips said in Rosecrans, supra, “The subsequent acquittal of . . . codefendants does not constitute a refutation of Rosecrans’ guilt, which he solemnly admitted by his plea of guilty. Such acquittal may have been the result of the failure of the United States to produce evidence at the trial satisfying the jury of codefendants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or because of other reasons.” 378 F.2d at 657.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Riojas pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 241 by conspiring with two correctional officers of the Bexar County jail in San Antonio, Texas, and others to deprive a prisoner in the jail of his constitutional right to be free from harm while in official custody. The conspiracy resulted in the murder of the prisoner.

It was charged that appellant paid the officers to move the prisoner into a cell *86 where appellant’s coconspirators could attack and kill him for appellant’s personal reasons. The two correctional officers of the jail which appellant was alleged to have bribed were acquitted upon trial.

Appellant now appeals his sentence on the ground that the acquittal of the two jail employees removed state action from the case and therefore there could be no federal offense under § 241.

This contention must fail. It is well established that the acquittal of coconspirators or coparticipants in a crime does not prove that the crime did not occur. Rosecrans v. United States, 378 F.2d 561, 567 (5th Cir. 1967). Nor does it bar the United States government from charging that appellant conspired with the acquitted state employees. Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 100 S.Ct. 1999, 64 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980).

Appellant pleaded guilty after a thorough hearing and under a plea bargain agreement. The acquittal of the two jailers, therefore, does not control his admission of guilt of the offense of conspiring with the two correctional officers and others to bring about the harm to the murdered prisoner. As Judge Phillips said in Rosecrans, supra, “The subsequent acquittal of . . . codefendants does not constitute a refutation of Rosecrans’ guilt, which he solemnly admitted by his plea of guilty. Such acquittal may have been the result of the failure of the United States to produce evidence at the trial satisfying the jury of codefendants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or because of other reasons.” 378 F.2d at 657.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 F.2d 85, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-farias-riojas-ca5-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack