# United States v. Edward John Johnston, Iii, Darrell Wayne Adams, Eric Darnell Lowery, Larry J. Hill, and Gonzalo J. Alvarado

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · October 27, 1997 · 127 F.3d 380

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490694

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward John JOHNSTON, III, Darrell Wayne Adams, Eric Darnell Lowery, Larry J. Hill, and Gonzalo J. Alvarado, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 27, 1997
- **Citations:** 127 F.3d 380; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 29666; 1997 WL 665128
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by King
- **Judges:** Politz, King, Duplantier
- **Cited by:** 119 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/9490694

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[t]he prejudice resulting from a direct reference by a prosecutor to the exercise of [the constitutional right of a defendant to choose not to testify], coupled with an attempt to use the failure to testify to limit the jurors’ personal deliberative process canno…
- holding that prosecutor comments on a defendant’s silence are only prohibited if the intent to comment on the silence was “manifest” or if the jury would “naturally and necessarily construe [the prosecutor’s remark] as a comment on the defendant’s silence”
- finding that district court’s curative instruction did not mitigáte prejudice when it was given more than a day after the impermissible comment and when the district court gave no instructions prior to closing arguments
- finding that district court’s curative instruction did not mitigate prejudice when it was given more than a day after the impermissible comment and when the district court gave no instructions prior to closing arguments
- finding prosecutorial misconduct when prosecution elicited testimony from several officers that, after having conversations with third parties, they began focusing more on certain individuals and activities

## Opinion text

KING, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I respectfully dissent from the judgment of the panel reversing the conviction of Larry Hill on Count 1 of the indictment. Judge Duplantier’s opinion does a careful job of outlining the substantial evidence against Hill. In my view, the prosecutorial misconduct that occurred here does not cast serious doubt on the correctness of the jury’s verdict. I would affirm his conviction. In all other *405 respects, I concur in the panel’s judgment and in Judge Duplantier’s superb opinion,

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490694. Public record. Not legal advice.