UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JAMES JOSEPH OWENS, 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 remanded the case for the district court to rule on a Rule 602 objection regarding witness personal knowledge, as the Supreme Court had reversed the prior decision on Confrontation Clause grounds.
The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision that an identification statement violated the Confrontation Clause. The appellate court had …
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 Federal Rule Of Evidence 802 cases and more on FLexlaw
The United States Supreme Court, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 838, 98 L.Ed.2d 951 reversed our decision that admission of Foster’s identification statement made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation violated the Confrontation Clause and Fed.R. Evid. 802. The Supreme Court did not address the requirements of Fed.R.Evid. 602 which reads in part:
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’ own testimony.
Because it is not clear that the district court ruled on Owens’ continuing Rule 602 objection after the testimony at trial failed to correspond with the prosecutor’s offer of proof, we remand. The district court is requested to rule on that objection in light of the trial testimony.
We find no merit to Owens’ appeal from the district court’s denial of his pretrial motion to substitute counsel, an issue which we did not previously address because of our initial reversal of Owens’ conviction on other grounds. The district court adequately inquired into Owens’ complaint and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Hudson v. Rushen, 686 F. 2d 826 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 916, 103 S.Ct. 1896, 77 L.Ed. 2d 285 (1983); United States v. Mills, 597 F. 2d 693 (9th Cir.1979).
This case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with the United States Supreme Court’s decision and this Order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Montgomery v. State, 584 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
-
United States v. Donaciano Hernandez-Escarsega, 886 F.2d 1560 (9th Cir. 1989)
-
United States v. Vince Lee Motz, 936 F.2d 1021 (9th Cir. 1991)
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1988)
- Bouma et ux. v. Larry C. Iverson, Inc., 461 U.S. 916 (U.S. 1983)
- United States v. Mills, 597 F.2d 693 (9th Cir. 1979)
- Hudson v. Rushen, 686 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1982)