Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Sherryl Lynn Grimsbo Henricksen

564 F.2d 197

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1977-12-08
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • holding government violated due process when it told the co-defendant that his plea agreement would be void if he testified for a co-defendant
  • agreement not to testify in any manner regarding codefendant constituted substantial interference with witness’s choice to testify and violated due process
  • agreement not to testify in any manner regarding 6 STATE v. SANCHEZ-EQUIHUA Opinion of the Court codefendant constituted substantial interference with witness’s choice to testify and violated due process
  • agreement not to testify interfered with witness’s choice to testify and violated due process
  • defense witness intimidated by terms of plea bargain
  • invalidating a no-testify plea agreement

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Sherryl Lynn Grimsbo Henricksen. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
60 opinions
UNITED STATES v. HENRICKSEN,564 F.2d 197(5th Cir. 1977)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SHERRYL LYNN GRIMSBO
HENRICKSEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 77-5159.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
December 8, 1977.
Gerald H. Goldstein, San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellant.Page 198

Jamie C. Boyd, U.S. Atty., LeRoy Morgan Jahn, Robert S. Bennett, Asst. U.S. Attys., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Defendant Sherryl Lynn Grimsbo Henricksen was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of21 U.S.C.A. §§ 846,841(a)(1). Prior to trial, a codefendant, whose testimony would have tended to exonerate Henricksen, plea bargained with the Government. As part of his plea, he had to agree not to testify in any manner regarding Henricksen. If he did testify, the Government stated the agreement would be void, and he would be tried on all counts of the indictment. The codefendant refused to testify.

[2] The Government, with the concurrence of the Justice Department and the trial judge, has now confessed error on this point and has requested that we reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Based upon an independent examination of the record, we conclude that the Government's confession of error is in order. Substantial Government interference with a defense witness' free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process.UnitedStates v. Morrison,535 F.2d 223(3d Cir. 1976);United Statesv. Thomas,488 F.2d 334(6th Cir. 1973).See United States v.Valdes,545 F.2d 957,959-961(5th Cir. 1977).

[3] The judgment of conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

[4] REVERSED AND REMANDED.Page 199
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.;see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. CitizensCasualty Co. of New York et al.,5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩