THOMAS CLAYTON SANDERS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that inferences drawn from a witness's Fifth Amendment invocation prejudiced the defendant, affecting his substantial rights.
During a trial, a witness invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The prosecution asked numerous questions, some of which co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In our opinion there is more than sufficient evidence in the record to convict appellant of the charge made against him (18 U.S.C. § 2421, interstate transportation of a woman for purposes of prostitution).
The sufficiency of the evidence to convict, however, is not the question before us. Government counsel asked one of two witnesses, who claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege, at least fifty-five questions, of which at least ten questions might well, if answered, have incriminated the witness. The second witness, claiming her Fifth Amendment privilege, was asked very few questions.
We conclude that the facts and procedures in this case do not fall within the rule of Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179, 83 S.Ct. 1151, 10 L.Ed.2d 278 (1963), but do come within the reasoning underlying Fletcher v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 332 F. 2d 724 (1964).
Without attempting to particularize, we are of the opinion that in the circumstances of this case, viewed in their entirety, inferences from Charlotte Ann Currin’s refusal to answer added critical weight to the prosecution’s case in a form not subject to cross-examination, and thus prejudiced appellant Sanders. These inferences affected his substantial rights.
The judgment of the district court, therefore, must be reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Roselli, 432 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1970)
-
United States v. Hearst, 563 F.2d 1331 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Cyrus T. Anderson, 509 F.2d 312 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179 (U.S. 1963)
- Fletcher v. United States, 332 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1964)