# Petition — ERIC TOUCHARD v. UNITED STATES (Nos. 81-6199, 81-1510, 81-6198) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385008_1836%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1981 ## Text Bt-Gi99 en) RECEIVED IN THE FEB 9 1982 DD FICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED S ‘hes PREME court, US. OCTOBER TERM, 1981 ERIC TOUCHARD, Petitioner UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. -——-—— oe -_ -——— =. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LIONEL R. BARRETT, JR., P. C. 211 Printers’ Alley Building Nashville, Tennessee 37201 (615) 254-1471 soi gy pp, ine Attorneys for Petitioner TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Case Andresen v. Maryland, 5. 463, 96 §$.Cr. 2737 (1976). Brady v. Maryland, 373 is. 220, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963). Bruton v. United States, 91 U.S. 123, T3T, fn. 6, 88 $.Ct. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 203 U.S. 443, OT S -€t. 2022 (1971). Cooper v. California, U.S. 58, 87 S.Ce. 788 (1967). . Cooper v. United States Je6 U.S -S5. BY S.Ct. 788 (1967). . iglo v. United States, U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763 (1972) . Maeglia v. Buckhoe, 315 F.2d 365 (6th Cir. 1975). 2. - Mooney v. Hollihan, 704 U.S. 103, 55 S$.Cr. 340 (1953) . Napue v. Illinois, U.S. 264, “79 S.Ct. 1173 (1959). Preston v. United States, 367 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881 (1964) . Stanley v. Georgia, 1620, 794 U.S. 557, 569, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 1250. . S. v. Agurs, TUS. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392 (1976) . U.S. v. Weidman, 572 F.2d 1199 (7th Cir. 1978)... United States v. Banks, 383 F.Supp. 389 (W.D. South Dakota, United States v. Bowen, 500 F.2d al (6th Cir. 1974) ° e ° . United States v. Leon, ° t re. 1976). .« « « United States v. McCoven, e st re. 1974) . « - United States v. Momus ° . Cir. 1978) . atte 1625 12 17 (Table of Authorities) (Cases) (Page) United States v. Perez, United States v. Tasto, vad 70 (5th Cir. 1978). ° ef 8© @ 17 Warden v. Hayden, 387 evre . S.Ct. 1642 (1967). . . ° . ° . . . 21, 22 abte IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1981 — ination produced a trial such as that which had been the concern of the United States Supreme Court in Kotteakos v. united States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946); Krulewitch v. United States, 336 u.s, 440, 4:5 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring), and that each Qefendant was Qenied the right to have his own involvement 79-5195 ete. ~4- and evidence thereof separately considered. The court 5 of the opinion tat the trial, while long, was not basicall: unfair and that Ju‘t;2 Morton's governance of it avoided the er: ors of those cases. In addition, the court finds no reversible error in Judge Morton's instructions to the jury. Fach of the four defendants, McLaughlin, tctoyer, Erie and Samuel Touchard, received a special parole tera of three years as part of his sentence for the conspiracy ccaviction. Each sentence was imposed prior to the United St tes Supreme Court's decision in Bifulco v. United States, 447 J.S. 381 (1980). As the government concedes, Bifulco requires that the special parole term aspect of each Gefendant's conspiracy sentence be vacated. According) y, If IS ORDERED that each defendant's sentence is vacated and the cause remanded to the district court for resentencing in accordance with this order. The judgment of the district court in each appeal is affirmec in all other respects. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT tf Vielen a... Clerk A TRUE COPY Atters?: 9C24°) © bree ss sg, Cherk ry ADeberar Korver Ocpeuasy © ISSUED AS NANDATE: December 29, 1961 COST: NONE NANDATE APPLIES TO CASES 79-5198 and 79-5245, only. ore em L Nos. 79-5198 and 79-5245 } F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS nFC 17 1981 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JOHN P. KExM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, cHMAN, Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee ee ae a V. SAMUEL P. TOUCHARD, III (79-5198) ERIC M. TOUCHARD (79-5245) Defendants-Appellaats / Before: WEICK and ENGEL, Circuit Judges and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge No judge in regular active service of the court having requested a vote on the suggestion for a rehearing en banc, the petition for rehearing filed herein by the defendants- appellants has been referred to the panel which heard the Original appeal. Upon consideration of said petiticn, the court finding no issues presented which have not been previously considered, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc be and it is hereby denied. ENTERED BY OCRDER OF THE COURT pa ere VO Clerk ; Aoperdix és S\-GI99 RECEIVED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED|STATESB 7 1982 OrFiCe OF THE CLEXK SUPREME COURT, US. —— _—_—— OCTOBER TERM, 1981 No. ERIC TOUCHARD, Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §$3006A(d)(6) and Rule 53 of this Court, the Petitioner, Eric Touchard, asks leave to file the attached Petitioner for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit without prepayment of fees or costs and to proceed in forma pauperis. The Petitioner was represented by counsel appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §$3006A in the district court and on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Respectfully submitted, LIONEL R. BARRETT, JR., P. C. 211 Printers’ Alley Building Nashville, Tennessee 37201 (615) 254-1471 Attorneys for Petitioner RECEIVED FEB % 1982 Orrict OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT, US. ea SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Bl-G199 IN THE OCTOBER TERM, 1981 id No. —<-<———--2ee7r ee" =O ERIC TOUCHARD, Petitioner, - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ALL PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI IN THESE MATTERS Comes now the attorney for the petitioner Eric Touchard and would show to the Court that it is his understanding that at least two other co-defendants, Athens Carl McLaughlin (79-5195) and Gregory Thomas Metoyer (79-5196), are also going to file petitions for certiorari as concerns the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit filed on October 22, 1981. All of these parties were co-defendants at the trial held in the Middle District of Tennessee in 1979, These cases were all consolidated for oral arguments and briefing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. They have in all respects always been consolidated. The issues that would be raised in the various petitions for certiorari are common to each of the defendants who participated at the trial belew and who seek review of the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court. Since these cases are sought to be reviewed en certiorari to the same Court and involve identical or close y related questions, it is requested that this petitioner be allowed to participate in any hearings that are granted to other petitioner and further, that these individual petitions for certiorari be consolidated pursuant to the spirit of Rule 19 of the United States Supreme Court Rules. Respectfully submitted, LIONEL R. BARRETT, JR., P. C. 211 Printers’ Alley Building Nashville, Tennessee 37201 (615) 254-1471 GO H# by: hes bk fon Ze aN R. Sate r./ 7 Wgbere Labi — Attorneys for Petitioner CERTIFICATE I certify that I have provided a copy of this motion to the following. counsel: 1. Margaret Huff, Assistant United States Attorney 879 United States Courthouse Nashville, Tennessee 37203 2. Ms. Michelle D. Washington Attorney at Law 304 South Broadway, Suite 441 Los Angeles, California 90013 Attorney for Appellant Athens Carl McLaughlin, Jr. 3. Mr. Leo Branton, Jr. Attorney at Law 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 520 Los Angeles, California 90067 Attorney for Appellant Gregory Thomas Metoyer 4. Mr. Michael Noel Attorney at Law Chancery Building 421 Charlotte Avenue Nashville, Tennessee 37219 on this the 8th day of February, 1982. one . Barrett, Jr. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385008_1836%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.