Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Roosevelt James, Petitioner-appellant, v. Louie L. Wainwright, Respondent-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. - 680 F.2d 102
July 6, 1982
Roosevelt James, pro se.
Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, JOHNSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is a Florida habeas case by a prisoner convicted of second degree murder. Denial of the writ is AFFIRMED.
Primary evidence against petitioner in his jury trial was a transcript, read to the jury by the court reporter, of an eyewitness' testimony given nine months earlier at a preliminary hearing. The witness was sworn before testifying at the preliminary hearing and was subjected to cross-examination by petitioner's attorney. The witness died after the preliminary hearing and before the trial. Use of this testimony under these circumstances was constitutionally permissible. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970); Mattox v. U. S., 156 U.S. 237, 15 S.Ct. 337, 39 L.Ed.2d 409 (1895).
When the transcript of the eyewitness' testimony was introduced the court instructed that the jury was to consider the testimony the same as though the witness were testifying before them in court. Defense counsel objected, and the judge then stated that he only meant to emphasize that the deceased witness had been testifying under oath at the preliminary hearing. As explained by the court, the instruction was not erroneous.
AFFIRMED.