Opinion ID: 490025
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Function of a Grand Jury

Text: 31 Appellant also contends that in explaining the function of the grand jury the court suggested his guilt to the petit jury by stating that grand jurors ... just hear enough evidence to make the judgment that a crime has probably been committed and that the person to be charged has probably committed it. This argument borders on the frivolous. First, the statement was made with reference to the role of a grand jury, not the particular grand jury which indicted appellant. Second, the court clearly admonished the petit jury that the fact that an indictment had been returned by a grand jury was not evidence of any kind against an accused and that the return of an indictment did not create any presumption or permit any inference of guilt. 32 We have considered carefully all of appellant's claims of error and we find that they are without merit.III. To summarize: 33 After considering carefully in detail each of appellant's claims of error, we conclude that the judgment of conviction must be affirmed. We hold that presenting a false identity in order to enter the United States is culpable conduct under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. The false statement was within the jurisdiction of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and was material to the Customs Service. We hold that the admission in evidence of appellant's prior deportation and conviction for reentry after deportation was proper pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. We also hold that, viewed as a whole, the jury charge correctly instructed the jury on the law and the pertinent facts. 34 Affirmed.