TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Jerry Buchanan and Frank Anthony Fiorini

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry BUCHANAN and Frank Anthony Fiorini, A/K/A Frank Sturgis, Defendants-Appellants

United States v. Buchanan, 500 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1974)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 12, 1974
Docket
No. 398
Judges
Brown, Thornberry, Ainsworth
Citations
500 F.2d 3981974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6893

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal from their convictions for transportation of stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312 , 2313, § 2, appellants allege that the evidence against them was insufficient and that their Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation of witnesses against them were denied. We find these contentions to be without merit and affirm the convictions.

Appellants allege they were training members of the International Anti-Communist Brigade for an invasion of Cuba. The government’s theory was that this was just a guise to hide a conspiracy to transport stolen motor vehicles into Mexico. Taking the view most favorable to the government, a reasonably minded jury could accept the relevant evidence as sufficient to support appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Warner, 5 Cir., 1971, 441 F.2d 821 .

Appellants’ other contentions deal with the cross-examination of the *399 final witness at trial, Agent Gibbons of the FBI. Gibbons’ direct testimony dealt exclusively with another defendant, Gonzales, except for a reference to appellant Sturgis as the leader of the brigade. On cross-examination, appellant’s counsel sought to elicite testimony about a statement given to Gibbons by Sturgis, This question was ruled beyond the scope of direct examination.

The fact that Sturgis was the leader of the brigade had already been established by other witnesses Appellant’s contentions that he was denied the right to confrontation are without merit. He could have called the agent as his own witness, or taken the stand himself on this point. Any prejudice that might have resulted was harmless.

See United States v. Resnick, 5 Cir., 1974, 488 F.2d 1165 at 1168 quoting from Kotteakos v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 750 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 10 L.Ed. 1557 .

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1976: 11977: 11991: 119762026peak 1976 · 1

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) 6,513
United States v. Warner, 441 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1971) 228
United States v. Resnick, 488 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1974) 22

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