Court Opinion

ID: 9445289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:24:38.789083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:12.021925
License: Public Domain

FAHY, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
In concurring with Judge Danaher I add a few words in comment upon the dissent. It is not clear that the testimony which Judge Bazelon feels was erroneously admitted to the prejudice of the appellant should have been excluded even if objected to, because it was testimony by witnesses of statements made by appellant which included those allegedly perjurious and which were closely related to the latter in point of time. Since this testimony was not objected to, and the verdict has abundant support in the evidence, I do not think a new trial is required because of its reception, or because of a claim that the trial judge abused his discretion in not permitting cross-examination with respect to the truth of those statements, the truth of which was not in issue. Nevertheless, one might well express the hope for leniency toward appellant.