Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Barry Kendall Hogan and Mark Bradford Hogan
Citations: 771 F.2d 82; 18 Fed. R. Serv. 1385; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23066Docket: 84-1687
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; August 29, 1985; Federal Appellate Court
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for rehearing concerning the case of United States v. Hogan but made specific clarifications regarding the prior decision. Initially, the court had reversed the defendants' convictions for marijuana importation and conspiracy due to the government's use of inadmissible hearsay to impeach witness Mark Carpenter. Upon reconsideration, the court acknowledged that Carpenter's testimony did not pertain to the conviction for the second count of importation, which was primarily supported by witness Boyce Rummel. The court noted that the Hogans' claims regarding the prosecutor's comments on Carpenter's statements in closing arguments were not supported by evidence. The court also addressed the Hogans' requests under the Jencks Act, which requires the government to provide certain witness statements. The refusal to release DEA Agent Brazeil's notes on Rummel's testimony necessitated a factual determination by the district court to assess compliance with the Jencks Act. Furthermore, the court revisited the Brady violation issue, initially deemed moot, confirming that any alleged violation related only to counts one and three and did not affect the second count for which the conviction was upheld. As a result of these considerations, the court withdrew its earlier reversal concerning the second count and remanded the case to the district court for a factual determination regarding the Jencks Act issue. The district court is instructed to supplement the record with its findings, after which the appeal will be fully resolved. The court retains jurisdiction for this process.