UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
HENRY HORTON HOLDER, M.D., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 the appellant's claims of insufficient evidence and error in voir dire restrictions were without merit.
The appellant contended the evidence was insufficient for guilt and that the trial court erred in restricting voir dire regarding a prior conviction. …
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 Tactical Decision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish guilt. We disagree; the record provides ample evidence of guilt.
Appellant further contends that the trial court erred in denying voir dire interrogation aimed at uncovering bias among prospective jurors toward a person convicted of the crime of abortion. Prior to empaneling the jury, the court directed that on cross-examination of appellant the government be restricted to inquiring whether appellant had been convicted of a felony, without identifying the nature thereof. Appellant’s counsel nevertheless identified the felony to the jury at the commencement of his opening statement and again by a specific question in his cross-examination of the first government witness.
It seems clear that appellant’s counsel deliberately disclosed the nature of the prior conviction for tactical reasons; appellant may not now predicate relief on a tactical error or mistake in strategy. United States v. Garguilo, 324 F. 2d 795, 797 (2d Cir. 1963). Even if subsequent questioning by government counsel as to the nature of the felony could have harmed appellant, failure to raise timely objection constituted waiver. The plain error rule is inapplicable.
* * * [W]e should invoke Rule 52 (b) in the very exceptional situation only, situations wherein it appears to be necessary in order to prevent miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity and reputation of the judicial process.
Marshall v. United States, 409 F. 2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1969); United States v. Nolte, 440 F. 2d 1124, 1127 (5th Cir. 1971).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Garguilo, 324 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1963)
- O'Dell Marshall v. United States, 409 F.2d 925 (9th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Odis Warren Nolte, 440 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1971)