# United States v. Harris

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 30, 1974 · 498 F.2d 1164

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8893889

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Charles HARRIS, in Nos. 73-2041, 2046 and Harold Young. Appeal of Harold E. YOUNG, in Nos. 73-2040, 73-2045 UNITED STATES of America v. Alvin E. YOUNG, in No. 73-2043. Appeal of Harvey JOHNSON, in No. 73-2042
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** May 30, 1974
- **Citations:** 498 F.2d 1164
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Aldisert, Biggs, Gibbons, Rosenn, Seitz, Weis
- **Cited by:** 59 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8893889

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting proposition that "the prosecutor must play the role of defense counsel, and ferret out ambiguities in his witness' responses on cross-examination"

## Opinion text

OPINION SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
The dissent sur denial of the petition for rehearing would reverse on the ground that the prosecution must inform the fact finder as well as the court and defense counsel of the truth. This requirement appears to have been met in the instant case, however, by the prosecutor’s proffered stipulation during the Government’s case in chief as to the facts he admitted to the court and to counsel. This stipulation could also have been submitted to the jury if defense counsel so desired.
The dissent views the trial judge’s statement that he would deny a defense motion as effectively foreclosing the defendants from any significant means of relief. The trial judge, however, was apparently referring to a motion for mistrial. As we have indicated in our original opinion, he was not precluding the defense from other remedies which were readily available to them.
For an example of measures by defense counsel to reduce prejudice resulting from the prosecution’s belated disclosure of a bargain with a key witness, see United States v. Johnson, 487 F.2d 1318, 1322-1324 (5th Cir. 1974), petition for certiorari filed, 42 U.S.L.W. 3542 (U.S. March 26, 1974) (No. 73-1418).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8893889. Public record. Not legal advice.