Court Opinion

ID: 9459337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:18:03.923668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:07.823341
License: Public Domain

FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in reversal of the judgment against Spcice.
With all respect, I reach different conclusions on two propositions, which would also lead to reversal as to De Stefano.
First: I think both defendants were entitled to the government’s assistance in serving a subpoena on Crimaldi. Perhaps he would have defied it, raising *338an issue for the court to resolve, but the prosecution should not be interposed between the defendant and his sixth amendment right to compulsory process. His testimony was so critical to the determination of truth in these circumstances that the defendants should not be required to demonstrate the extent to which his testimony would be favorable to them, as compared with the testimony of Braseth.
Second: I consider portions of the supplementary charge objectionable under United States v. Brown, 411 F.2d 930 (7th Cir. 1969): (1) The admonition that absolute certainty cannot be expected; (2) the directions to the jurors who are in the minority to reexamine their views; (3) the portion which suggests that a different jury will be no better able to decide the case if left open by the present jury.
Before SWYGERT, Chief Judge, and FAIRCHILD and CUMMINGS, Circuit Judges.
AMENDED ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Julius Lucius Echeles, counsel for the defendant-appellant, suggesting the death of the defendant-appellant Sam DeStefano on April 14, 1973.
The appellant’s conviction was affirmed on February 14, 1973, and a petition for rehearing and a suggestion of a rehearing en banc was filed by appellant on February 23, 1973. Prior to appellant’s death, a majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service voted pursuant to Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to rehear the appeal en banc.
It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed as moot and the district court is directed to enter an order vacating the judgment of conviction and dismissing the indictment as moot.