United States v. William T. Wuliger

999 F.2d 1090

6th Cir.

1993

Check Treatment

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William T. WULIGER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-3061

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 11, 1993.

1090

Before: KENNEDY and MILBURN, Circuit Judges; and WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge.

The information concerning Parks’ transportation of cocaine for Sam Scruggs in the summer of 1988, just prior to the time he joined the charged conspiracy, was also kept under seal by the district court. Much of it probably would not have been admissible as probative of Parks’ character for truthfulness. See Fed.R.Evid. 608(b). At most, if disclosed to the defense, it would have constituted cumulative impeachment evidence. Accordingly, its suppression does not require that defendants’ convictions be vitiated. Having thus concluded that the district court‘s handling of defendants’ Brady and Jencks Act concerns was appropriate, Murr‘s contention must be rejected.

AFFIRMED.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William T. WULIGER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-3061

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 11, 1993.

WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring:

As indicated in my initial separate opinion, I find this to be a very close case.

United States v. Chan Chun-Yin, 958 F.2d 440 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 3010, 120 L.Ed.2d 884 (1992), is a basis for finding that the omission in the jury instruction may be harmless error. I find an insufficient basis to dissent from denial of a rehearing, but the court may deem it a proper candidate for rehearing en banc, because this controversy involves a statute and an interesting issue not previously considered by the Sixth Circuit.

This court “should not exercise [its] discretion [to correct the forfeited error] unless the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’

United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting ).” (emphasis added). I am not sure that the error in jury instruction did seriously or necessarily affect the fairness and integrity of the proceedings against Wuliger, an experienced trial counsel.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing filed by the appellee,

It is ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be, and it hereby is, DENIED.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David J. SHIELDS and Pasquale F. DeLeo, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 92-1683, 92-2237

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued March 30, 1993. Decided July 14, 1993. Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 27, 1993.*

* Chief Judge William J. Bauer and Circuit Judges Joel M. Flaum, Kenneth F. Ripple and Ilana Diamond Rovner took no part in the consideration or decision in this matter.