Court Opinion

ID: 9446316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:52:09.737054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:36.907768
License: Public Domain

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
1 concur in the result. In the vernacular, the trouble with the indictment and the proof is that the plot just didn’t get “off the ground.” I believe the district attorney (with great resourcefulness) has to search too hard when he suggests that Ethridge’s conduct might have resulted in Walters giving up his right of appeal. I believe it is a mistake in the usual case under Section 1503 to regard the intent of him who receives the proposal to influence the course of justice as too important. For example, if Ethridge had offered money to a juror, the juror having no intention to accept, there would of course be an endeavor to influence. Here we had what was really an incipient and stupid confidence game which literally and figuratively didn’t get near, or get started toward the courthouse.
*237It is clear here that the jury believed Walters and disbelieved Ethridge’s denials that the proposition was made. Of course, perjury trials are difficult when it is one man’s word vis-a-vis another’s and there may not be enough corroboration under Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. €06, 65 S.Ct. 548, 89 L.Ed. 495, to proceed against Ethridge. At least the district attorney should consider the possibility.