Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Carlton Ellis Allison

487 F.2d 339

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-11-13
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: This Dyer Act ease was remanded to the district court for a limited posLtrial hearing to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the presence of the alternate juror during the jury’s deliberations affected the jury’s verdict. The factual circumstances requiring the remand order and the directions given to the district court for an evidentiary hearing appear in our prior opinion, United States v. Allison, etc., 5 Cir. 1973, 481 F.2d 468. The trial judge has conducted an evi-dentiary hearing, the transcript thereof and the court’s findings and conclusions have been certified to us. The parties were requested to but have declined to file briefs on the remand issue.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Carlton Ellis Allison. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
34 opinions
UNITED STATES v. ALLISON,487 F.2d 339(5th Cir. 1973)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CARLTON ELLIS ALLISON ET
AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
No. 72-2828.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 13, 1973.
Arthur J. Hanes, Sr., Birmingham, Ala., for Allison and Perry.

J. Terry Huffstutler, Jr., Guntersville, Ala., for Holladay.

Robert B. French, Jr., Fort Payne, Ala., for Ralph Marquez.

James R. Venable, Decatur, Ga., for Bryant, Denson and Robinson.

Larry L. Debus, Phoenix, Ariz., for M. Marquez.
Wayman G. Sherrer, U.S. Atty., Albert C. Bowen, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and COLEMAN and DYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] This Dyer Act case was remanded to the district court for a limited post-trial hearing to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the presence of the alternate juror during the jury's deliberations affected the jury's verdict. The factual circumstances requiring the remand order and the directions given to the district court for an evidentiary hearing appear in our prior opinion, United States v. Allison, etc., 5 Cir. 1973,481 F.2d 468.

[2] The trial judge has conducted an evidentiary hearing, the transcript thereof and the court's findings and conclusions have been certified to us. The parties were requested to but have declined to file briefs on the remand issue. In the hearing each juror and the alternate was interrogated out of the presence of the other jurors. Following the hearing the trial judge entered an order containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

[3] The procedures followed by the trial judge and the standards employed by him complied with our remand directions. We find no error in the trial judge's conclusion that there is no reasonable possibility that the presence of the alternate juror during the jury's deliberations affected the verdict.

[4] The findings and conclusions of the district court on remand are affirmed. This requires that the convictions be, and they hereby are

[5] Affirmed.Page 340