# Opposition Brief — Brown v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385607_0934%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1973 - **Citation:** 414 U.S. 1023 ## Text fa a ¥ Pines’ oe ate see gh 5 8 he 3 se - INDEX Page Opinion below .............--s-rssseeeeeesees ee Jurisdiction .................. x. | Questions presented ..........:..0-sesesseeeeees 43 Statement ...................ccesccccccccccccccccncnnsenncenssscsegeononoenes 2 A. The 1968 Government Contract Bribery Case and its Aftermath ...............ccccsceseeeeseees 2 B. Trial of the Jury Bribery Case ...............0-0+++- 3 Argument eee ENS Ore eS ake ee 6 COMCHUSION ....20.-cccceeccccescccessocccccsccccsseseccneeeses 10 Cases: Burt v. United States, 139 F. 2d 73, certiorari denied, 321 U.S. 799 .............ececssseeee 10 Campbell v. United States, 176 F. 2d 45 ............ 8 Commonwealth v. Quaranta, 295 Pa. 264, SOG 0 OD cnnencescrsesmitinncnsimmnnaaanaan 10 Fenwick v. United States, 252 F. 2d 124 ............ = State ex rel. Carson v. Wood, 175 S. E. DO GNF ........ Petitioner contends that the 1968 indictment and con- viction were improperly admitted as evidence of @ prior similar act (Pet. 9-11). After petitioner's counsel had cross ecamined ex-Governor Barron with respect to his 1968 ittal and petitioner's conviction for taking a bribe demonstrate, inter alia, scheme, design, or intent, United States v. Pauldino, 443 F. 2d 1108, 1113(C.A. 10), certior- ari denied sub nom. Bridwell v. United States, 404 U.S. 882. Tule 60%e) of the Proposed Rules of Evidence for United Although Congress is the rules before permitting aie igo into effect, Rule 60%e) is retained in its cotuny in a draft prepared by the i on Criminal Justice Committee on the J House of Representatives. 119 Cong. I want you to know that that [sic] prior conviction cannot be considered : - the crime of conspiring to bribe the juror Buckalew [Tr. 449-450]. ents Sissiler conti , ons were given by the jud in his final charge to the jury (Tr. 876-878). Once the con- viction was put in evidence by petitioner himself, it re- mained for the trial judge to determine what, if any, limi- 15-17). This contention is without substance since Perry's i had nothing to do with petitioner's guilt or inno- 10 cence (Tr. 18-19, 312-313); see Burt v. United States, 139 F. 2d 73, 76 (C.A. 5), certiorari denied, 321 U.S. 799. the acquittals into evidence, stating that such evidence was not admissible on behalf of defendant as evidence tending to establish his innocence.‘ CONCLUSION It is therefore respectfully submitted that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. Rosert H. Bork, Solicitor General. Henry E. PETERSEN, Assistant Attorney General. Jerome M. FEIT, LauREN S. KAHN, Attorneys. Octoser 1973. ¢ The claim that the government's argument to the jury implied that follows: I hardly expect Mr. Perry would come in here and readily admit to you that he bribed a juror in his capacity as attorney for Governor Barron in the 1968 case. 1 don’t think that’s going to be the thing he is going to do. So I think you can bear in mind—you can take his testimony and weigh it in light of his situation as regards to this entire circumstances (C.A. 64]. . Petitioner did not object to these remarks at the time they were made nor seek to have them stricken. Moreover, taken in context, the remarks refer to Perry’s status as attorney, and contain no implication that Perry was facing prosecution. : --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385607_0934%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.