William Fred Dryden, Sam Alta Dryden, Newman Grady Albright, Edward E. Jackson, Luther Tate Conner and James Daniel v. United States

Fifth Circuit

William Fred Dryden, Sam Alta Dryden, Newman Grady Albright, Edward E. Jackson, Luther Tate Conner and James Daniel v. United States

237 F.2d 517

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 26, 1956

Docket15995_1

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 237 F.2d 517 (William Fred Dryden, Sam Alta Dryden, Newman Grady Albright, Edward E. Jackson, Luther Tate Conner and James Daniel v. United States) 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

William Fred Dryden, Sam Alta Dryden, Newman Grady Albright, Edward E. Jackson, Luther Tate Conner and James Daniel v. United States, 237 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents as the sole allegation of error the trial court’s permitting a government witness, whose impeachment had been sought, to attempt to explain away on redirect examination two state court convictions. Appellants contend that once they have drawn from a witness the damaging admission that he has been convicted, it was reversible error for the witness to be permitted to explain away the effect of such convictions.

No federal decision is cited to support the appellants’ contention. It is generally recognized that there is a wide discretion in the trial court as to the extent to which such collateral issues may be inquired into. Undoubtedly there is some authority for the contention that ordinarily a trial court should not permit a witness to contradict proof of a prior conviction. Wigmore, Evidence, 3d Ed., Section 1116, and cases cited there. No case has been called to our attention where an appellate court has held it to be reversible error if the trial judge, in his discretion, permits such a witness to attempt to explain or minimize the importance of a prior conviction. In Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Haley, 5 Cir., 85 F. 534, this court held that where it appeared that a witness had been convicted of a crime, it was not error for the trial court to permit him to testify that he had later served as a trusty in the prison where he served. See also U. S. v. Boyer, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 202, 150 F.2d 595, 166 A.L.R. 209. In that case the Municipal Court of the District of Columbia refused to allow a witness to explain one conviction while allowing him to explain several others. The Municipal Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial on this ground. The Court of Appeals reversed the Mu *518 nLcipal Court of Appeals on the ground that whereas it would have been proper for the trial court to have permitted such testimony, failure to do so was not reversible error. It appearing that the trial court did not abuse his discretion in overruling appellant’s objection to this testimony, and this being the only ground of the appeal, the judgment is hereby

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents as the sole allegation of error the trial court’s permitting a government witness, whose impeachment had been sought, to attempt to explain away on redirect examination two state court convictions. Appellants contend that once they have drawn from a witness the damaging admission that he has been convicted, it was reversible error for the witness to be permitted to explain away the effect of such convictions.

No federal decision is cited to support the appellants’ contention. It is generally recognized that there is a wide discretion in the trial court as to the extent to which such collateral issues may be inquired into. Undoubtedly there is some authority for the contention that ordinarily a trial court should not permit a witness to contradict proof of a prior conviction. Wigmore, Evidence, 3d Ed., Section 1116, and cases cited there. No case has been called to our attention where an appellate court has held it to be reversible error if the trial judge, in his discretion, permits such a witness to attempt to explain or minimize the importance of a prior conviction. In Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Haley, 5 Cir., 85 F. 534, this court held that where it appeared that a witness had been convicted of a crime, it was not error for the trial court to permit him to testify that he had later served as a trusty in the prison where he served. See also U. S. v. Boyer, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 202, 150 F.2d 595, 166 A.L.R. 209. In that case the Municipal Court of the District of Columbia refused to allow a witness to explain one conviction while allowing him to explain several others. The Municipal Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial on this ground. The Court of Appeals reversed the Mu *518 nLcipal Court of Appeals on the ground that whereas it would have been proper for the trial court to have permitted such testimony, failure to do so was not reversible error. It appearing that the trial court did not abuse his discretion in overruling appellant’s objection to this testimony, and this being the only ground of the appeal, the judgment is hereby

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 F.2d 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-fred-dryden-sam-alta-dryden-newman-grady-albright-edward-e-ca5-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack