TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Kelwyn Harris

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kelwyn HARRIS, Appellant

United States v. Harris, 193 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 1999)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 18, 1999
Docket
No. 98-3721
Judges
Arnold, Bowman, Beam
Citations
193 F.3d 9571999 WL 8909191999 U.S. App. LEXIS 25702

Opinion — Bowman

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Kelwyn Harris appeals his conviction after a jury trial before the District Court 1

on charges of attempting to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846 (1994). For reversal of his conviction (he does not raise any issues particular to his sentence), Harris argues that the District Court erred by failing to exclude the testimony of a paid government informant. We affirm.

Harris’s argument is that the government’s use of a paid informant who testified against Harris violated 18 U.S.C. § 201 (c)(2) (1994), 2

requiring exclusion of the informant’s testimony. We disagree. Harris’s argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Albanese, 195 F.3d 389, 394-95 (8th Cir.1999), in which this Court rejected the defendant’s identical § 201(c)(2) claim.

Altánese settled (if it had not been settled previously) the § 201(c)(2) issue in this Circuit. Accordingly, we hold, consistent with Albanese , that Harris’s claim, that § 201(c)(2) was violated by the government’s use of the testimony of the paid informant and that the District Court erred by failing to exclude that testimony, lacks merit.

The fact that the government had paid the informant for his past assistance and had paid or intended to pay him for his assistance in this case was made known to the jury and was fully explored at trial before the jury found Harris guilty as charged. In these circumstances, the District Court properly admitted the informant’s testimony and left it to the jury to assess his credibility and decide what weight, if any, to give to his testimony. We conclude that Harris’s § 201(c)(2) argument provides no basis for reversing his' conviction.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. Section 201(c)(2) states that anyone who, directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person's absence therefrom shall be imprisoned or fined for such conduct.

See 18 U.S.C. § 201 (c)(2).

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

2000: 22001: 22007: 22010: 120002026peak 2000 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. MacUla Anty203 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2000)
  2. United States v. Mykola Ihnatenko, United States of America v. Mykhailo Yurchenko482 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2007)
  3. United States v. Devon Julian Bradford, Also Known as Devo, United States of America v246 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2001)
  4. Moreland v. State696 S.E.2d 448 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)
  5. United States v. Devon J. Bradford246 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2001)
  6. United States v. Steve BlockNo. 99-2449 (8th Cir. Jan. 20, 2000)

Most recent

  1. Moreland v. State696 S.E.2d 448 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)
  2. United States v. Mykola Ihnatenko, United States of America v. Mykhailo Yurchenko482 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2007)
  3. United States v. IhnatenkoNo. 05-50150 (9th Cir. Mar. 30, 2007)
  4. United States v. Devon Julian Bradford, Also Known as Devo, United States of America v246 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2001)
  5. United States v. Devon J. Bradford246 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2001)
  6. United States v. MacUla Anty203 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2000)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Albanese, 195 F.3d 389 (8th Cir. 1999) 26

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