holding that the in camera procedure provides an acceptable accommodation of the competing interests of the government and the accused in the situation presented here, wherein the question is whether the law officer has lied
How later courts described this case
- holding that the in camera procedure provides an acceptable accommodation of the competing interests of the government and the accused in the situation presented here, wherein the question is whether the law officer has lied
- rejecting Kotteakos argument because appellant “was not subjected to the danger that he might be convicted on the basis of evidence that related only to a conspiracy of which he was not a part”
- involving a statement by a coconspirator to a person unrelated to the conspiracy
- court properly heard in camera testimony from informer and agents, and determined that agent had not lied in affidavit
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
I concur in the majority opinion except as to the reversal of Floyd Moore’s conviction. I believe that the district court’s decision not to rule that the Rezabek statement was inadmissible against Floyd as a matter of law, if incorrect, was harmless error. Floyd Moore and Rezabek were tried together. Initially, the district court concluded that the statement was admissible against Rezabek but not Floyd, and gave a limiting instruction to that effect. Later, after the government had rested, the court changed its ruling and determined that there was sufficient evidence to send to the jury the question of whether Floyd’s failure to respond to the statement could be treated as an adopted admission.
Because the statement was plainly admissible against co-defendant Rezabek, the jury would have heard it in any event. Thus, the majority’s argument comes down to the proposition that reversal is compelled because of the prejudice possibly created by telling the jury that it was permissible for them to find that Floyd adopted the statement as his own. In view of all the other evidence linking Floyd to the conspiracy, I cannot conclude that the absence of this instruction would have changed the outcome.