 |
studentJD |
|
|
Students Helping Students |
Currently Briefing & Updating |
|
Student Case Briefs, Outlines, Notes and Sample Tests
Terms & Conditions
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission. In accordance with UCC § 2-316, this product is provided with "no warranties,either express or implied." The information contained is provided "as-is", with "no guarantee of merchantability." |
|
|
United States v. Yates, 553 F.2d 518 |
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit |
1977 |
|
Chapter |
2 |
Title |
Evidence A Contemporary Approach |
|
Page |
19 |
Topic |
The Process of Proof and the Structure of Trial |
|
Quick Notes |
Description o Yates appealed from his jury conviction of bank robbery. o He signed a confession but maintained o He did not know what he was signing, o He did not rob the bank, o He thought he was under investigation for writing bad checks, and wanted to cooperate with the FBI.
Whether a judge CAN exceeds the scope of permissible judicial comment? Yes, he negated the defense
Court o It is clear that the record from the testimony that this defendant did admit his participation in this bank robbery. o Judges also have the power and discretion to comment on the evidence presented at trial as long as such commentary is impartial.
Comment o Struck the heart of Yates case. o Yates had not other defense. o The impression was clearly created before the jury, that the court considered the Governments case had been proved. o This infringed upon the rights of the Df to have the jury weigh the evidence as to proof of guilt.
Reversed and Remanded for a new trial |
||
|
Book Name |
Evidence: A Contemporary Approach. Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves. ISBN: 978-0-314-19105-2. |
||
|
Issue |
o Whether a judge CAN exceed the scope of permissible judicial comment? No, he negated the defense. |
|
Procedure |
|
|
District |
o |
|
Circuit |
o Reversed and Remanded for a new trial |
|
Facts |
Discussion |
Key Terms |
Rules |
|
Description o Yates appealed from his jury conviction of bank robbery. o He signed a confession but maintained o He did not know what he was signing, o He did not rob the bank, o He thought he was under investigation for writing bad checks, and wanted to cooperate with the FBI.
Last Witness o FBI agent was the case-in-chief and the last witness. o He testified to Yates confession, Exhibit #2. (Written dialogue of the confession). |
Government (Prosecution) o Requested that either himself of the clerk read aloud the confession.
Defense o Requested the dialogue be read by the jury themselves.
The Court o The jury can read it themselves. o It is clear that the record from the testimony that this defendant did admit his participation in this bank robbery.
Defense o Strongly urges that the district judges remarks exceed the scope of permissible judicial comment on the evidence and is reversible.
Government (Prosecution) o Asserts the remarks are within the broad traditional powers of a trial judge to control the progress of the case and to comment on the evidence. o The comments were not on the evidence, but rather an observation that the document was self-explanatory, and did not need to be published to the jury. o The defense did not object to this statement at the time of request OR later.
Comment o Struck the heart of Yates case. o Yates had not other defense. o The impression was clearly created before the jury, that the court considered the Governments case had been proved. o This infringed upon the rights of the Df to have the jury weigh the evidence as to proof of guilt.
Reversed and Remanded for a new trial
|
||
|
Rules |
|
Rule 614. Calling and Interrogation of Witnesses by Court
(a) Calling by court. The court may, on its own motion or at the suggestion of a party, call witnesses, and all parties are entitled to cross-examine witnesses thus called.
(b) Interrogation by court. The court may interrogate witnesses, whether called by itself or by a party.
(c) Objections. Objections to the calling of witnesses by the court or to interrogation by it may be made at the time or at the next available opportunity when the jury is not present.
Rule 614 Discussion o The judge is expressly granted the right to call and question witnesses, even repeatedly and aggressively, to clear up confusion and manage trials whenever necessary. o A judges overly aggressive questioning of witnesses will not result in reversal unless it affects the substantial rights of party.
Limits o A Judge may not ask questions that signal their belief or disbelief of witnesses because that determination is part of the jurys role in a case.
Generally o A judges overly aggressive questioning will not result in reversal UNLESS it affects the substantial rights of a party.
|
|
Class Notes |
|
|