Court Opinion

ID: 9449070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:54:49.18341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:40.724641
License: Public Domain

BURGER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was convicted of violation of the federal narcotic laws. On appeal, this court remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to the District Judge to examine Officer Joy’s grand jury testimony in camera, and in the event he found significant inconsistencies between the testimony before the grand jury and at trial, he was to make the pertinent parts of the grand jury minutes available to the defense.1 The District Judge found no significant inconsistencies. On this motion the government asks this court to affirm the finding of the District Judge.
We have examined the grand jury minutes and have found no abuse of discretion or other error in the District Court’s resolution of this issue.
The dissent points to no material or significant discrepancies between the trial and grand jury testimony of the police officer, but rather on an individual subjective interpretation of the two sets of answers. Essentially the dissent is a series of comparisons of what Officer Joy’s testimony “suggests” or “may suggest,” “indicates,” “seems to indicate.” Our careful review of the record and the grand jury minutes satisfies us that the discrepancies are no more than the normal variations which occur when one person describes a series of events on *583two different occasions many months apart.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.

. Gordon v. United States, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 299 F.2d 117 (1962).