# United States v. Cecil Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · July 15, 2002 · 298 F.3d 392

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495208

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 15, 2002
- **Citations:** 298 F.3d 392; 2002 WL 1495898
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by King
- **Judges:** King, Jones, Dennis
- **Cited by:** 43 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/9495208

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that defendant is not entitled to a hearing if after striking the disputed material there remains "sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause" (quotations and citations omitted)
- affirming Goodwin’s reasoning that a *132 “pre-trial change in the indictment ... is less likely to be deemed vindictive.”

## Opinion text

KING, Chief Judge,
specially concurring:
With one small exception, I concur fully in Judge Jones’s excellent opinion for the panel. The exception relates to whether the Government effectively misrepresented Patrick Graham’s credibility to the district judge when the agent said, in his affidavit, that “[sjince his cooperation with the FBI, he has never been known to provide false or misleading information.” The agent provided information (about pending indictments and a pending federal tax and corruption investigation of Graham) to the district judge that would put the judge on notice that Graham was potentially untrustworthy. Nevertheless, on the basis of Brown’s offer of proof, the district judge may not have been fully advised (as he should have been) of what may have been the Government’s well-founded conviction that Graham was, in fact, untrustworthy. But, as Judge Jones has clearly estab *407 lished, even if we assume arguendo that the Government was not truthful or sufficiently forthcoming on the matter of Graham’s lack of trustworthiness and we set aside all the allegations that are not independently corroborated, the affidavit still contains enough evidence to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495208. Public record. Not legal advice.