Court Opinion

ID: 2965296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:38:23.044978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:06.622742
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit
                                
                                

No. 95-1423

                          UNITED STATES,

                            Appellee,

                                v.

                    JAMES MICHAEL MURPHY, JR.,

                      Defendant, Appellant.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                      Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                

     James Michael Murphy, Jr. on brief pro se.
     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, James B. Farmer and
Stephen P. Heymann, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Kathleen
A. Felton, Attorney, Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.

May 19, 1998

                                
                                
            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and
    the portions of the record transmitted to this court, we
    conclude that defendant's conviction and sentence should be
    upheld.  None of the issues briefed by defendant suggest to us
    that a new trial is warranted.  Particularly:
              1.   The district court did not abuse its discretion
    in determining that the Joyce affidavit should be admitted.  In
    our view, the circumstances in which the affidavit was made
    provide indicia of reliability sufficient to overcome
    defendant's arguments about the hearsay rule and the
    Confrontation Clause.  
              2.   The district court also acted within its
    discretion in admitting the limited evidence as to Methuen and
    Quinn, as relevant to establish the identity of the Fitchburg
    participants, and we cannot say that such evidence was overly
    prejudicial in the circumstances. 
              3.   We reject defendant's arguments about the
    testimony of Ryan.  
              4.   We cannot say that the district court abused its
    considerable discretion in dismissing certain jurors whose voir
    dire responses were substantially incomplete.  
             5.   We find no abuse of discretion in the denial
  without prejudice of defendant's initial non-specific motion
  for investigative services.  
            6.   Defendant's allegations of government misconduct
  are unsupported by the record.  
       7.   We find no merit whatsoever in defendant's claim
    that his federal sentence is improper in relation to a pre-
    existing state sentence, even assuming that such claim would be
    within the scope of our jurisdiction for this appeal.  
        8.   Having found no specific error among those
    alleged by defendant, we cannot find that any cumulative error
    warrants reversal here.
        Defendant's "motion for leave to file additional due
    process violation" is denied.  We have no jurisdiction in this
    appeal to consider the post-judgment events of which defendant
    complains.
        The judgment is affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.