United States v. Theodore Travers, A/K/A Eric Mendoza
This text of 918 F.2d 225 (United States v. Theodore Travers, A/K/A Eric Mendoza) 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.
Opinion
918 F.2d 225
287 U.S.App.D.C. 19
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.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.
Theodore TRAVERS, a/k/a Eric Mendoza, Appellant.
No. 89-3173.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Nov. 26, 1990.
Before BUCKLEY, SENTELLE and HENDERSON, 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 and arguments by counsel. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 14(c).
Defendant/appellant Travers raises two issues on appeal. First, he contends that he was deprived of his right to a jury trial when the judge imposed a $1,000-per-day contempt fine, which was to accrue until Travers obeyed an order to provide samples of his handwriting. Where the penalty is contingent on defendant's failure to perform a certain act, as here, the contempt is civil. See Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 632-33 (1988). In civil contempt proceedings, the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a jury trial, do not apply. See id. at 632; Douglass v. First National Realty Corp., 543 F.2d 894, 897 (D.C.Cir.1976). Second, Travers argues that the judge erred in admitting evidence of prior bad acts. We conclude that the evidence was properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). It is therefore
ORDERED and ADJUDGED by the court that the contempt order and the convictions entered against Travers be affirmed.
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 15.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
918 F.2d 225, 287 U.S. App. D.C. 19, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20644, 1990 WL 183622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-theodore-travers-aka-eric-mendoza-cadc-1990.