TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Paul R. Jones

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Paul R. JONES, Appellant

United States v. Jones, 402 F.2d 851 (2d Cir. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 14, 1968
Docket
No. 30925_1
Judges
Friendly, Moore, Smith
Citations
402 F.2d 8511968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4885

Opinion — Smith

J. JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge:

Paul R. Jones was convicted of perjury on trial to the jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, William B. Herlands, Judge, and Jones appealed. We affirmed, United States v. Jones, 2 Cir., 374 F.2d 414 . On application by Jones for certiorari from our decision affirming his conviction, the judgment was vacated and the appeal remanded, 392 U.S. 299 , 88 S.Ct. 2050 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1104 (1968), for our consideration in the light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).

On reconsideration we have come to the conclusion that the conviction cannot stand in the light of Bruton v. United States, supra. The court had correctly charged that the jury could consider Mittelman’s affidavit in determining the meaning of Jones’ affidavit on which the perjury charge was based only if Jones knew of Mittelman’s affidavit. The court further charged that Mittelman’s grand jury testimony could not be considered in determining the guilt or innocence of Jones. However, the most persuasive, if not indeed the sole evidence of Jones’ knowledge of Mittelman’s affidavit was Mittelman’s- grand jury testimony. In view of this, we must conclude that there was more than a fair likelihood that the jury was unable to perform the feat enjoined on it by the court’s instructions to disregard that testimony. Since it was crucial testimony outside of court not subject to cross examination on behalf of Jones, cf. Pointer v. State of Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965), it comes under the *852 interdiction of Bruton , made applicable retroactively by Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 , 88 S.Ct. 1921 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1968).

We must therefore reverse Jones’ conviction and remand for new trial. Reversed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1971: 11978: 119712026peak 1971 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Stanley Marks585 F.2d 164 (6th Cir. 1978)
  2. United States v. Donald Jacob Arceneaux437 F.2d 924 (9th Cir. 1971)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Stanley Marks585 F.2d 164 (6th Cir. 1978)
  2. United States v. Donald Jacob Arceneaux437 F.2d 924 (9th Cir. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) 7,533
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965) 3,917
Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 (1968) 501
Jones v. United States, 392 U.S. 299 (1968) 5
United States v. Jones, 374 F.2d 414 (2d Cir. 1967) 21

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list