# United States v. Franklin D. Wilson and Gary Wayne Bugbee

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · August 10, 1978 · 578 F.2d 67

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464848

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Franklin D. WILSON and Gary Wayne Bugbee, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 10, 1978
- **Citations:** 578 F.2d 67; 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9629
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Hill, Per Curiam, Rubin, Vance
- **Cited by:** 68 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/9464848

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a recording with inaudible portions because “much of [the tape] can be heard clearly”

## Opinion text

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing on behalf of appellant Wilson, only, is DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
As a postscript to this denial of rehearing, we add the following observation to our prior opinion, on our own motion.
In Part III. A. of our opinion, we used this case as a platform for expressing our concern about a recurring phenomenon. As we there noted, we have observed, all too often, overzealous advocacy by the prosecutor resulting in the “seeding” of a record with unnecessary rulings upon which reviewable claims of error are based. Simply because we make these observations in this case is not meant to unduly chastise the prosecutor here. We do not wish to “visit the sins” of all overzealous prosecutors on government counsel in this case. Indeed, as we are careful to point out in our opinion, this is not the prototypic example of this phenomenon. Our holding shows as much: our ultimate treatment of the evidence of the “Tommy transaction” demonstrates that the prosecutor’s (not counsel who argued the appeal) success in injecting the matter was of no harmful moment. Yet, we believe that this case was an appropriate platform for our observations: objection was made to somewhat extraneous evidence; the trial judge was required to rule; error was predicated on that ruling. And, all this resulted from the prosecutor’s having won a point of so little value to the prosecution that, as we have held, it did not harm the defense.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464848. Public record. Not legal advice.