stating that even if a prosecutor misstated evidence, no plain error existed because the District Court’s instruction to the jury that its recollection controls “cured any possible prejudice from the comment”
How later courts described this case
- stating that even if a prosecutor misstated evidence, no plain error existed because the District Court’s instruction to the jury that its recollection controls “cured any possible prejudice from the comment”
- holding that telegraphs were properly authenticated by witnesses who had identified their appearance and content, as well as by other circumstantial evidence
- finding that the question posed to the defendant was not ambiguous because it was reasonable to expect the defendant to understand the question’s meaning
- holding that a prosecutor’s comment was not error when the inference was supported by the evidence presented at trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Aug. 31, 1994.
Before SLOVITER, Circuit Judge, and BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS, MCKEE, and GARTH, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO, District Judge.*
The petition for rehearing filed by the appellant, William P. Reilly, in the above captioned matter having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the court in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied. Judge Garth votes for rehearing before the panel.
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Aug. 31, 1994.
Before SLOVITER, Circuit Judge, and BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS, MCKEE, and GARTH, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO, District Judge. *
The petition for rehearing filed by the appellant, John Patrick Dowd, in the above captioned matter having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the court in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied. Judge Becker would grant rehearing by the court in banc.
Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.