Opinion ID: 423507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Stillman's Contentions

Text: 127 Was the defendant denied a fair trial, due process of law and his right of confrontation when the trial court took the following actions with respect to the testimony of the Government's critical witness: 128 Denied defendant access to statements of the witness given to his probation officer and refused to examine the statements in camera for impeachment material? 129 Quashed defendant's subpoena for letters written by the witness? 130 Refused to permit defendant to question whether the witness's plea bargain included an agreement not to bring other charges? 131 Refused to permit defendant to question whether the plea bargain included an agreement not to prosecute for income tax evasion? 132 Refused to require the witness to submit to psychological examination to determine the extent of memory impairment caused by heroin addiction? 133 Refused to grant use immunity to a co-defendant whose testimony would contradict that of the witness concerning the single directly incriminatory event? 134 Refused to permit cross-examination based upon interview notes taken by a DEA agent? 135 Refused to allow cross-examination over the government's inclusion of its right to a polygraph examination upon demand in the witness's plea bargain? 136 Denied defendant access to DEA files on the informer-witness, refused to examine their contents in camera for impeachment material and other exculpatory evidence, and refused to seal them for transmittal to this Court? 137 Upheld an assertion of governmental privilege against disclosure of the DEA file on the witness by an Assistant United States Attorney? 138 Denied defendant access to interview notes of an Assistant United States Attorney of an interview immediately before the witness changed his version to an incriminatory one? 139 Refused to instruct the jury in accordance with the testimony of an expert that the witness's addiction to heroin might be considered in assessing his memory? 140 Was the defendant denied a fair trial, due process of law and his right of confrontation when the trial court took the following actions with respect to out-of-court declarations of alleged conspirators: 141 Refused to conduct a pretrial hearing to determine whether statement of an alleged conspirator were admissible within Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)? 142 Refused to conduct a pretrial hearing to determine whether statements of an alleged conspirator were made in his role as government informer? 143 Refused to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard in assessing the admissibility of statements of alleged conspirators and instead applied a prima facie standard? 144 Refused to exclude statements of alleged conspirators which were narrative and not in furtherance of any charged conspiracy? 145 Refused to exclude statements of alleged conspirators which were made after the conspiracies charged had terminated? 146 Required the jury to determine whether statements were in furtherance of a conspiracy and during its pendency and refused to submit instructions which defined these terms? 147 Refused to allow defendant to make an opening statement before the introduction of evidence in which the jury would be cautioned that out-of-court statements by an alleged conspirator might have been made in his role of undercover informer? 148 Refused to exclude out-of-court statements which were neither reliable, trustworthy nor corroborated? 149 Refused to instruct the jury that out-of-court statements should be considered with caution? 150 Refused to exclude out-of-court declarations when there was no evidence that the declarant had personal knowledge of the facts asserted? 151 Refused to instruct the jury that out-of-court declarations by an alleged conspirator were not evidence against defendant if made while the declarant was acting as an undercover informer and not as a conspirator? 152 Refused to allow evidence that the declarant of out-of-court statements had previously been convicted of a felony and had a bad reputation for truthfulness? 153 Instructed the jury that it could not consider the testimony of alleged conspirators in determining a defendant's membership in the conspiracy? 154 Refused to instruct the jury that statements by an alleged conspirator were conceded to be false? 155 Allowed the jury to consider adoptive admissions of an alleged conspirator as statements in furtherance of conspiracy? 156 Refused to allow cross-examination of an alleged conspirator over privileged conversations with another alleged conspirator? 157 Submitted to the jury the determination of which conversations of an alleged conspirator should be excluded as within the marital privilege? 158 Was the defendant denied a fair trial and due process of law when the trial court made the following rulings: 159 Admitted evidence of the non-testifying defendant's four-year-old conviction for use of a telephone to facilitate the purchase of heroin on the theory that both that offense and the instant conspiracies were identical in the sense that a telephone was used in the commission of both crimes? 160 Refused to conduct a hearing on whether the probative value of defendant's prior conviction outweighed its prejudicial effect? 161 Refused to allow defendant to testify to the circumstances of the prior conviction and his reasons for entering an Alford plea to that charge without being cross-examined on the merits of the case on trial? 162 Refused to grant a continuance to permit defendant to obtain evidence which would contradict testimony of a DEA agent who testified to the prior conviction on the grounds that the testimony was collateral? 163 Refused to instruct the jury on the significance of multiple conspiracies and that it must acquit the defendant if he was found to be a member only of a conspiracy not charged in the indictment? 164 Submitted an instruction which allowed the jury to convict defendant for a conspiracy not charged in the indictment? 165 Held that where the Code of Federal Regulations placed a limiting construction on a penal statute, the defendant could be convicted if his conduct was within the statute even though it was excluded by the Code? 166 Refused to submit an instruction which defined the elements of the offense? 167 Refused to submit a lesser-included offense when the evidence demonstrated its existence and possible commission? 168 Denied defendant's motion for mistrial after it had informed the jury that a person to whom heroin was delivered was an agent of defendant? 169 Instructed the jury that pleas of guilty by alleged conspirators were not necessarily evidence of defendant's guilt? 170 Instructed the jury that evidence of a defendant's prior conviction could be used in weighing his credibility when the convicted defendant did not testify? 171