An arrest record in Florida can contain a wide variety of information depending on the nature of the arrest made. We do not believe that this conversation, even though perhaps in violation of the standard admonition not to discuss a case before the jury retires to deliberate, violated any of defendant's substantial rights.What is an arrest record or an arrest warrant?Īn arrest record is an official, state-provided resource that seeks to detail as much information about a particular arrest as is possible. He stated only that, however the case came out, the juror should not second-guess her own decision. The husband expressed no view as to the merits of the case one way or the other. In any event, and even if defendant's husband said something to her about the case before the trial was over, we see no prejudice. On the other hand, the phrase "it's over" indicates that the conversation may have taken place at the end of the trial. On the one hand, it does say that her husband had spoken to her about the case on the first night of the trial. First, the language of the juror's letter to the Court is ambiguous. We cannot agree with this argument for several reasons. The defendant relies on his contention that the juror's conversations with her husband occurred before the verdict, at a time when the juror ought not to have been discussing the case with anyone. To impeach a jury verdict, the defendant must "(1) produce evidence which is not barred by the rule of juror incompetency and (2) produce evidence sufficient to prove grounds recognized as adequate to overturn the verdict." United States v. To question Trooper Richardson about Russell's misrepresentations or mistakes would only have cast doubt upon the credibility of Russell, who was a defense witness in this case. Indeed, once Russell started to change his testimony, cases where he was the only witness capable of identification were dismissed. Trooper Richardson never asserted that he could identify Patrick. It was Russell, the informant, who misidentified Patrick. We believe, however, that the defendant ignores a key distinction. The defendant argues that the jury should have been made aware that a misidentification had been made in the past. The defendant points to the case of Theodore Patrick, who was acquitted of a drug charge because his attorney demonstrated that on the date he had allegedly participated in a drug transaction, he was in fact in jail. 668 (1984), because there is no proof that Trooper Richardson had in fact misidentified other individuals implicated as a part of Operation Wholesale. We disagree with the defendant that his trial counsel's performance was deficient under Strickland v. The defendant's name was on that list, and the record was introduced into evidence. In this report, Agent Pinkstone recorded the names provided to him by Russell of individuals who were selling Russell cocaine base. Agent Pinkstone offered a report created after a monthly meeting with Russell. Agent Pinkstone testified that he had shown a photograph of the defendant to Russell prior to the defendant's arrest, and that he had made clear to Russell that the defendant was about to be arrested for selling cocaine. Special Agent Steve Pinkstone of the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified that when Russell was still being paid by the government, he was willing to implicate the defendant in the cocaine sale. She identified the defendant as one of the individuals who were paying Russell. Johnnie Hickman, the informant's former fiancéee, testified that Russell had solicited payment from certain defendants charged in Operation Wholesale in exchange for Russell's favorable testimony. The government called two rebuttal witnesses.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |