UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
TERRY RAY UPTAIN, 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 trial judge did not err in admitting the attorney's testimony, denying a judgment of acquittal, or admitting the defendant's statement.
The defendant was indicted for wire fraud and bail jumping. At his trial for bail jumping, his attorney testified regarding notice of the trial date. …
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 Bail Jumping cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
After his indictment and arrest for wire fraud, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, appellant failed to appear in court on the appointed trial date, and was indicted for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3150. At Uptain’s trial for jumping bail, two court-appointed attorneys acted as counsel, and he also questioned some of the witnesses. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. We affirm.
Uptain now brings forward four points, none of which have any merit. He objects to the trial judge’s ruling permitting his attorney to testify as to notice of the trial date given to him; to the attorney’s testimony concerning FBI Agent Cox who was not called as a witness; to the failure of the trial judge to enter a judgment of acquittal; and to the judge’s action in admitting an out-of-court statement Uptain allegedly made.
Counsel’s message to his client concerning the date of trial was not a privileged communication. See, e. g., United States v. Bourassa, 411 F. 2d 69 (10 Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 235, 24 L.Ed.2d 192 (1969); United States v. Hall, 346 F. 2d 875 (2 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 910, 86 S.Ct. 250, 15 L.Ed.2d 161 (1965). The attorney’s testimony concerning his comments to Agent Cox only uncovered what was already known; i. e., that he had written two letters to Uptain informing him of the date and time of trial. The judge certainly made no error by not granting a judgment of acquittal. Uptain’s guilt was clearly proven. Finally, Uptain’s statement was a volunteered, unsolicited statement that he blurted out during the trial.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Clemons, 676 F.2d 124 (5th Cir. 1982)
-
Uptain v. United States, 692 F.2d 8 (5th Cir. 1982)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Bourassa, 411 F.2d 69 (10th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Hall, 346 F.2d 875 (2d Cir. 1965)
- Jarrett v. Britt, 396 U.S. 915 (U.S. 1969)
- Waldo v. United States, 396 U.S. 915 (U.S. 1969)
- Hall v. United States, 382 U.S. 910 (U.S. 1965)
- Clark v. Illinois, 382 U.S. 910 (U.S. 1965)