Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-85-01768/USCOURTS-ca10-85-01768-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis Anthony Rivera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

.FILED 

United Stares Court of Appeals '11,,.,t.h ,..,,..~·•it 

MAY 1 91989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Nos. 85-1768 

85-1771 

LUIS ANTHONY RIVERA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

OPINION OF THE COURT 

ON REHEARING EN BANC 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, MCKAY, LOGAN, SEYMOUR, MOORE, 

ANDERSON, TACHA, BALDOCK, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

This case was originally decided by a panel of this court, 

United States v. Rivera, 837 F.2d 906 (10th Cir. 1988). We 

subsequently granted rehearing en bane limited to the issue of: 

whether the Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clauses of 

the United States Constitution require that an 

indictment charging a continuing criminal enterprise 

must allege all offenses to be used at trial, thus 

showing that facts concerning such offenses were 

presented to the grand jury, in order for evidence of 

such offenses to be admissible at trial. 

United States v. Rivera, 847 F.2d 660 (10th Cir. 1988). 

After oral argument before the. en bane court, o'n September 

18, 1988, we ordered supplemental briefing which directed the 

parties, among other things, to address an additional question 

Appellate Case: 85-1768 Document: 01019963431 Date Filed: 05/19/1989 Page: 1 
stated as follows: 

3. Is it sufficient for an indictment that charges a 

violation of 21 u.s.c. § 848 simply to allege in 

the language of the statute "a continuing series of 

violations," or do the 5th and 6th Amendments of 

the United States Constitution (including the right 

to indictment clause of the 5th Amendment) require 

the indictment to describe the essential facts 

constituting each violation relied upon to 

establish the series of violations? 

Following full consideration, the en bane court was evenly 

divided on the question as stated in paragraph 3 of the court's 

. September 18, 1988 Order Requesting Supplemental Briefing. 

Thus, we next considered the narrower, original question of 

whether the trial court properly admitted into evidence uncharged 

offenses as substantive proof of the continuing series element of 

the continuing criminal enterprise charge. See 847 F.2d at 660. 

Again, after full consideration, the en bane court was evenly 

divided on the question of whether this indictment would support 

the introduction of evidence of uncharged offenses in order to 

prove the predicate offenses. Therefore, on this issue, the trial 

court is affirmed by an equally divided court. Accordingly, our 

judgment on this issue, found at 837 F.2d 914-921 (headnotes 6-

20), is without precedent and is not binding on the trial court in 

this case. Eaton v. Price, 364 U.S. 263 (1960). The panel 

opinion otherwise remains undisturbed by the en bane court. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 85-1768 Document: 01019963431 Date Filed: 05/19/1989 Page: 2