# United States v. Daniel Lee Rucker and Eugene C. Smith

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · September 28, 1978 · 586 F.2d 899

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9465237

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Lee RUCKER and Eugene C. Smith, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** September 28, 1978
- **Citations:** 586 F.2d 899; 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8739
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Oakes
- **Judges:** Oakes, Blumenfeld, Mehrtens
- **Cited by:** 87 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/9465237

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding no constitutional deprivation due to denial of daily transcripts

## Opinion text

OAKES, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the court’s thorough opinion. I write only with respect to the general objection to that portion of the charge relating to credibility generally and the interest of the defendant particularly. To my mind such a charge, absent the balancing language approved in United States v. Martin, 525 F.2d 703 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 1035 , 96 S.Ct. 570 , 46 L.Ed.2d 410 (1975), and suggested as “preferable” in United States v. Floyd, 555 F.2d 45 , 47 n.4 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 851 , 98 S.Ct. 163 , 54 L.Ed.2d 120 (1977), to the effect that a defendant’s vital interest in the outcome of his trial is not inconsistent with his ability to render truthful testimony, is erroneous, prejudicial, and, in a close case hinging on defendant’s credibility, devastating. Here, however, defense counsel made no objection specifically calling the trial judge’s attention to the omission of the balancing language; and because our court in Floyd, supra, used language that was only precatory in nature, I find it difficult to hold such omission reversible error here. Because Judge Platt and a few other district judges have evidently used the charge given here, I would simply recall attention to the preferability language of the note in Floyd, supra. Speaking only for myself, I would not be adverse, as to trials occurring hereafter, to reversal on the basis of such an omission. I am reminded of Judge Frank’s view that precatory language of the court of appeals condemning error that nevertheless results in affirmance is “purely ceremonial” in nature. United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co., 155 F.2d 631, 661 (2d Cir.) (Frank, J., dissenting), cert, denied, 329 U.S. 742 , 67 S.Ct. 49 , 91 L.Ed. 640 (1946).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9465237. Public record. Not legal advice.