# Opposition — Cody v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1438%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition
- **Published:** January 1, 1984
- **Citation:** 467 U.S. 1226

## Text

ey tn ate NE he SS So

ee te es ae ee
PRONE BY:
—

FILED |
= No. 88-1374 WAY 11 1064 iy
rs ST EEEESEnnEnEEEnSEEEEnEion Reel Stevas. |

3u the Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 19838

JOHN CODY, PETITIONER
Vv,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinion below

Jurisdiction

Statement

Argument

Conclusion

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases :
Arroyo V. United States, 369 U.S. 419 _...........18, 14, 15
California V. Green, 399 U.S. 149 17
Chapman V. California, 386 U.S. 18 16
Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 16,17
Harrington V. California, 396 U.S. 250 00000... 116
Klein v. Harris, 667 F.2d 274 8, 16
Schneble Vv. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 16
Steele v. Taylor, 684 F.2d 1198, cert. denied, No. 82-

65092 (Mar. 28, 1983) 18
United States V. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 7, 9, 10,11
United States v. Castillo, 615 F.2d 878 17
United States v. LeRoy, 687 F.2d 610, cert. denied,

No. 82-5571 (Jan. 24, 1988)

Hoe srbseneriade natin sg = fi pean

& ay —_———
Use ® c y4
ny Oe ec
' a -+

s

4

re Pe Ae

Cases—Continued : Page
United States v. Snow, 621 F.2d 780, cert. denied,
. 423 U.S. 1090 17
i. United States v. Starusko, T29 F 2d 256 11
- United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, cert. denied,
ig 456 U.S. 1008 18 a
Ne United States ex rel. Marenza Vv. Gengler, 574 F.2d .
a 780 11 M4
t Constitution, statutes and rules :
iz U.S. Const. Amend. VI (Confrontation Clause) .... 17 p
18 U.S.C. 1964 2
, 18 U.S.C. 1961(1) 12 ?
os. ° 18 U.S.C. 1961 (5) 12
‘% 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) 2,7
P 26 U.S.C. 7206 (1) 2
29 U.S.C. 186(a) 18
g 29 U.S.C. 186(b) 14
* 29 U.S.C. 186(b) (1) ...2, 8, 18
29 U.S.C. 186(c) 14,15 *
‘= Fed. R. Crim. P. ag
a Rule 83 6 a
* Rule 62(a) 17
Fed. R. Evid. 804(b) (6) 6, 15

In the Supreme Court of the United States

OcTosEr TERM, 1983

CODY, PETITIONER
v.

No. 83-1374

JOHN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION

A238) is reported at 722 F.2d 1052.

the

court

2
tioner, a union official, was convicted on one count of

VITI).2 He was sentenced to concurrent terms of five
years’ imprisonment on the racketeering and tax
evasion counts; to a concurrent three-year term on
the false filing count; to concurrent one-year terms on
each illegal benefits count; and to fines totaling
$80,000. The court of appeals reversed petitioner’s
conviction on one of the illegal benefits counts (Count

‘ “ig (ssi

: 5 Le |
ie iE an e
r THA a Ht t

la “break” on the
from a company official, the bill was
additional acts that
eer anie

‘ite eit
'
3

in it fil ri

=

Hitt is;

i ifttie E
THE

Lyle

ut

a

operating with the government in July 1979. At that
time, he furnished statements and documentary evi-

i

33

‘il

tui

EET

HET

itt

LHe

ji 3 aay

: len i :
PR ERs OO GIex FT

=

«ist

7 °

law enforcement authorities which might reasonably
reflect on the witness’ motives and Peas with

the government” (Pet. App. pein see request,

(1976), for determining whether a new trial was
warranted was whether, when evaluated in the con-
text of the entire record, the evidence in question
created a reasonable doubt as to petitioner’s guilt that

stantial] possibility of a prejudicial spillover effect”

(Pet. App. A17-A18).°

HE
ga aH
itis! ibe i i

HT
He ae

as
Se “ "
bg : > he “v . wx sia ‘
; i. S*. wae a Fae catia as a .

ee i

:
ve : a

Ii

3 rectly attributable to petitioner’s own incomplete
presentation of the issues to that court.”
Petitioner thus raises no question of general im-

not conflict with them. Moreover, even had petitioner
properly presented his current argument in the courts
: below, there can be little question that his convictions
. would have been affirmed. Where evidence is sought
merely for impeachment purposes, it is deemed ex-
a culpatory only when “the credibility of the witness
x may be determinative of a criminal defendant’s guilt
or innocence.” United States v. Starusko, 729 F.2d ;
256, 260 (3d Cir. 1984); United States ex rel Mar-
enaa Vv. ler, 574 F.2d 730, 785 (3d Cir. 1978);
see also United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1026
(11 Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1186 (1982).
By the same token, even where a specific request for
im

:

lt
if
9°
it
ge

i
i
iL
HE
+

The
¥

that a conviction would have
a [peti-

testimony,

, was

petitioner was

the decision of

See United

OT OE rag MO ee
12
two predicate crimes are needed to obtain a con-

a, the RICO statute (see 18 U.S.C. 1961

$4
=
H
: 7
g 404535 tacks it
HE He a i inh ie

13

2. Petitioner claims (Pet. 16-18) that a union of-
ficial cannot be convicted of an unlawful receipt of
benefits under 29 U.S.C. 186(b)(1) without proof
that the employer of the individuals who supplied the
benefits “intend[ed] to confer a benefit” on him.”

union represen their workers, and Section 186

(b)(1) prohibits union officials from accepting any q
: such payments. As this Court observed in Arroyo ‘

v. United States, 359 U.S. 419, 423-424 (1959) (cita- |
q tions omitted) : ;

This is not to say that the statute requires mu-

a have letrned of his threats to Strong (assuming he did iz

“The district court charged the jury that, although it 9
be aware vices

oe ee? T.

¥ Da Si 4 bai Dt all oe ae be 13 ashes

ket (Hemant UAE |
ie i
eel tial dae \

oy ati oo
TPM PPR DTEHH AS Hl
3 SHIRT TE [HAE Ca

—s t Rn bee >

ng 5 i eS eek i ee ee ee! es / Le ae” ee «
. “< yr re ’ a! ‘ a S
at
»

16

Petitioner contends (Pet. 19-20) that in making
this determination the court of appeals improperly

a eed Be
- -

hearsay evidence constitutes a violation of the Con-
frontation Clause requiring application of the consti-
tutional harmless error doctrine. In Dutton v. Evans,

=
cq
ta
2
8
3
a
Ei

i
Hil
;

1
Hi
F
i
i

| q

sth

ve Wai Zh 4 Sa

- Ҥ , arta
wre

~

OAR He
7 ictal HE il ta
titan ie re ' aT
Nips ah
Bs a $e if aes
al bait HF iain
itihiiall: aul Litt il

? >» 7 Ne. hd
ae Sgt SEs meer . 5 ; Cee She ee ae
4 em pe . ~~ a - » ta oat ~ a _ <=. =~ P —

® Moreover, ion wasn prt rao ae
Tr. 229-282), arama

5, ou mane a0 Re

on ie meee) oa Te ee kl

4 fig™ - ER

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1438%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.