Court Opinion

ID: 9458189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:45:00.666237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:40.025134
License: Public Domain

LYDICK, District Judge
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent.
The facts in this case can be briefly stated: Robert and Helen Hernandez ran a wholesale narcotics operation in Tijuana, Mexico from where they shipped cocaine and heroin to distributors in Los Angeles, California. In November, 1968 defendant-appellant Garcia Vasquez supplied these wholesalers with nearly eight pounds of cocaine which was delivered in San Diego, California and transported to Los Angeles for distribution.
The majority would reverse the conviction of Garcia Yasquez because of claimed error arising out of cross-examination of him concerning his prior criminal record and an instruction given by the Court below in that connection.
On cross-examination, the prosecution asked appellant if he had “. . . ever been convicted of a crime ? ” He answered “No”. The prosecution then asked: “Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Garcia, that *205you were convicted in New York City in 1966 of the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug?” After objection and argument outside the presence of the jury, the question was asked again and appellant explained at length his version of that arrest, which version was ^entirely inconsistent with that found in the records of the Supreme Court of New York concerning his conviction. These discrepancies led to some further cross-examination and the admission of Exhibits 20, 20-A and 20-B, the above noted New York Supreme Court records. The entire line of questioning, including that brought on by appellant’s own explanation at odds with official court records, occupied less than fifty lines of a 434-page transcript and never once mentioned the word “felony”.
The instruction given by the Court below was a general instruction reading: “Evidence of a defendant’s previous conviction of a felony is to be considered by you only insofar as it may affect his credibility as a witness. It must not be considered as evidence of guilt of a crime for which he is on trial.”
The only objection to the questioning was that of surprise of appellant’s counsel. No request for a continuance was made and no subsequent motion for mistrial made despite the lower Court’s invitation to defense counsel to make such a motion if investigation made it appear appropriate. Some indication of the lack of belief of defendant himself and his trial counsel that the cross-examination and instruction now complained of had any effect on the jury verdict is found in their failure to pursue the matter at all by way of prompt investigation, motion for mistrial or motion for new trial.
In my view, defendant’s initial denial that he ever had been convicted of a crime made the subsequent questions of the prosecution appropriate and the impeachment was proper whether or not the prior conviction was a felony. Witnesses should not be shielded from contradiction of their own untruths.
Moreover, assuming error in the admission of the answers, I am satisfied that it could not have affected the result. Reason and the sound administration of justice require that one look at the totality of circumstances and not examine each word or sentence as though it were heard alone. Where, as here, any other result than that obtained in the trial Court would have been a bad miscarriage of justice, our duty to reflect on the effect of slight error is increased.
I must accordingly conclude that there was no error; and that, if there was error, it was not aggravated and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 28 U.S.C. § 2111; Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 52(a); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 at 254, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1968); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 at 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). I would affirm the judgment below because I do not believe the claimed error, if any, has resulted in a miscarriage of justice or can justify in any way the time and expense to the people that a new trial would require.
I agree with the majority that none of the other contentions made by the appellant have any merit.