# United States v. Bert Lancaster, United States of America v. Derrick Vanlierop

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 15, 1996 · 78 F.3d 888

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488983

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bert LANCASTER, Defendant-Appellant; UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick VANLIEROP, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 15, 1996
- **Citations:** 78 F.3d 888; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 7901
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Luttig
- **Judges:** Murnaghan, Luttig, Williams
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9488983

## Opinion text

LUTTIG, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I believe that Judge Williams’ opinion for the court properly interprets our decision in United States v. Evans, 917 F.2d 800 (4th Cir.1990), as limited to the very narrow facts presented in that case, and correctly holds that the facts with which we are confronted are sufficiently different from those in Evans that that decision is not controlling here. Among other distinguishing factors, the court specifically instructed the jury in this case, unlike in Evans , that the “defendant’s testimony is to be judged in the same way as that of any other witness,” see J.A. at 238 — that is, in the same way as the testimony of the two correctional officers who testified against Lancaster and Vanlierop. Additionally, there were other witnesses to the assault who could have been called to testify, as well as independent evidence of the crime beyond the testimony of the persons involved.
If the opportunity arose, however, I would overrule Evans — or at the very least require that trial courts also ask each member of the venire whether he would “give special credence and weight to the word of [the criminal defendant] simply because of the fact that he [is the criminal defendant],” see id. at 806 , and excuse for cause anyone who answers affirmatively, as Evans requires that we excuse those who say that they would give more weight to officers of the law than to criminal defendants. At a minimum, we should be evenhanded in our pursuit of rules assertedly designed to ensure evenhandedness.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488983. Public record. Not legal advice.