Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Waldo Kent Ferguson, and Robert Lowell Rogers v. United States, 329 F.2d 923, 10th Cir. (1964)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Two defendants were tried jointly but represented by separate counsel. The trial court only allowed one defense counsel to conduct cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The appellate court found this to be a plain error, as each defendant has the right to have non-repetitive cross-examination conducted on their behalf by their individual counsel. The appellate court withdrew its previous opinion and reversed the judgments, directing that new trials be granted to each defendant.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Waldo Kent Ferguson, and Robert Lowell Rogers v. United States, 329 F.2d 923, 10th Cir. (1964)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views1 page
    Two defendants were tried jointly but represented by separate counsel. The trial court only allowed one defense counsel to conduct cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The appellate court found this to be a plain error, as each defendant has the right to have non-repetitive cross-examination conducted on their behalf by their individual counsel. The appellate court withdrew its previous opinion and reversed the judgments, directing that new trials be granted to each defendant.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1964-04-02 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 329 F.2d 923 Docket: 7021

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Two defendants were tried jointly but represented by separate counsel. The trial court only allowed one defense counsel to conduct cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The appellate court found this to be a plain error, as each defendant has the right to have non-repetitive cross-examination conducted on their behalf by their individual counsel. The appellate court withdrew its previous opinion and reversed the judgments, directing that new trials be granted to each defendant.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views1 page

    Waldo Kent Ferguson, and Robert Lowell Rogers v. United States, 329 F.2d 923, 10th Cir. (1964)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Two defendants were tried jointly but represented by separate counsel. The trial court only allowed one defense counsel to conduct cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The appellate court found this to be a plain error, as each defendant has the right to have non-repetitive cross-examination conducted on their behalf by their individual counsel. The appellate court withdrew its previous opinion and reversed the judgments, directing that new trials be granted to each defendant.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    329 F.

    2d 923

    Waldo Kent FERGUSON, and Robert Lowell Rogers,


    Appellants,
    v.
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
    Nos. 7020, 7021.

    United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.


    April 2, 1964.

    Judd L. Black, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellants.


    Jack R. Parr, Asst. U.S. Atty. (B. Andrew Potter, U.S. Atty., was with him
    on the brief), for appellee.
    Before PICKETT, LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    Appellants were tried jointly but were represented by individual counsel. The
    trial court's ruling that prosecution witnesses could be cross-examined by but
    one counsel constitutes plain error within the compulsion of Rule 52(b) of the
    Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Each defendant had the right to have nonrepetitious cross-examination conducted on his behalf by his individual counsel
    and could not be required to have questions pertaining to his particular interests
    channeled through his co-defendant's counsel.

    The opinion of the court heretofore filed, 307 F.2d 787, is withdrawn and the
    judgments are severally reversed with directions to grant new trials.

    You might also like