Court Opinion

ID: 9466651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:21:54.794152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:50.960954
License: Public Domain

*1176COLEMAN, Chief Judge,
with whom JOHN R. BROWN, AINSWORTH, GEE, REAVLEY, POLITZ and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The real issue in Dohm’s appeal is whether he was compelled to surrender one constitutional right in order to preserve another. The panel majority, in an opinion which I authored, held that there had been no such compulsion. The en banc Court agrees. On that point, I, of course, concur in the en banc opinion.
It is to be regretted, however, that the en banc Court nevertheless reverses the conviction, mandating a new trial. Admitting evidence of what Dohm blurted out to the Magistrate after being warned at least three times to be careful about making incriminating statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Omitting the statement, the remaining proof of guilt is overwhelming, indeed unassailable. The length of time it took Dohm to assemble the cocaine was immaterial. The controlling question was whether he had it in his possession and joined in selling it. About that there is really no dispute.
After the agents were taken to Dohm’s home by his associates, the cocaine was found in his presence, openly displayed on the counter in his own kitchen. Dohm agreed to sell the cocaine for the munificent sum of $41,200.
To escape conviction under these circumstances could be appraised only as a legal wonder of the first magnitude. His retrial will be a needless waste of judicial time and resources.
I would affirm Dohm’s conviction, close the case, and relieve him of any further misery over what is to become of him after being caught utterly red handed and after-wards convicted on open and shut proof.