United States v. Sherryl Lynn Grimsbo Henricksen

564 F.2d 197, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5709
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 8, 1977
Docket77-5159
StatusPublished
Cited by60 cases

This text of 564 F.2d 197 (United States v. Sherryl Lynn Grimsbo Henricksen) 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. Sherryl Lynn Grimsbo Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5709 (5th Cir. 1977).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Sherryl Lynn Grimsbo Henricksen was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). Prior to trial, a codefendant, whose testimony would have tended to exonerate Henricksen, plea bargained with the Government. As part of his plea, he had to agree not to testify in any manner regarding Henricksen. If he did testify, the Government stated the agreement would be void, and he would be tried on all counts of the indictment. The codefendant refused to testify.

The Government, with the concurrence of the Justice Department and the trial judge, has now confessed error on this point and has requested that we reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Based upon an independent examination of the record, we conclude that the Government’s confession of error is in order. Substantial Government interference with a defense witness’ free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process. United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223 (3d Cir. 1976); United States v. Thomas, 488 F.2d 334 (6th Cir. 1973). See United States v. Valdes, 545 F.2d 957, 959-961 (5th Cir. 1977).

The judgment of conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

Related

United States v. Roberto Hernandez-Escobar
911 F.3d 952 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
United States v. Vasquez-Hernandez
314 F. Supp. 3d 744 (W.D. Texas, 2018)
State v. Jackson
2018 Ohio 1633 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
United States v. Sean Gerald Penoncello
671 F. App'x 399 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
Darryl Colbert v. State of Minnesota
870 N.W.2d 616 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2015)
Holland v. Pierce
109 F. Supp. 3d 636 (D. Delaware, 2015)
State of Arizona v. Veronica Sanchez-Equihua
326 P.3d 321 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2014)
State v. Blazas
74 A.3d 991 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2013)
Woods v. Adams
631 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (C.D. California, 2009)
United States v. Juliette Petit Frere
334 F. App'x 231 (Eleventh Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Edmond
63 M.J. 343 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2006)
Maples v. Stegall
Sixth Circuit, 2005
David A. Maples v. Jimmy Stegall, Warden
427 F.3d 1020 (Sixth Circuit, 2005)
State v. Star
10 P.3d 37 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2000)
State v. Finley
998 P.2d 95 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2000)
Williams v. Calderon
48 F. Supp. 2d 979 (C.D. California, 1998)
United States v. Schlei
122 F.3d 944 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Dupre
117 F.3d 810 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
564 F.2d 197, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sherryl-lynn-grimsbo-henricksen-ca5-1977.