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. Brown
Citations: 12 F.3d 52; 40 Fed. R. Serv. 186; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 439; 1994 WL 5142Docket: 92-02900
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; January 11, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Darleene Elizabeth Brown was convicted of embezzling union funds and making false entries in union records while serving as the secretary and bookkeeper for Local 1111 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. She allegedly paid herself excessive salaries and authorized charges on union credit cards used by her husband, Homer Brown, and son, Austin Wright. Following an investigation by the Department of Labor, Brown was indicted and subsequently convicted on all counts, receiving a 12-month prison sentence. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit identified a critical issue regarding the handling of testimonial privileges invoked by Brown's husband and son that compromised the trial's fairness. Prior to his testimony, the government was aware that Homer Brown would refuse to testify against his wife due to marital privilege. Despite this, he was called to the stand, and although his privilege was upheld, the jury was not instructed to disregard his presence, potentially leading them to infer damaging information against Brown. Similarly, Austin Wright was called as a witness and invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court allowed this invocation but did not instruct the jury to avoid drawing negative conclusions from it. The absence of testimony from both men created an impression of guilt associated with Brown, as the jury could interpret their silence as indicative of her wrongdoing. The appellate court concluded that the government's actions constituted a "conscious and flagrant effort" to benefit from the inferences drawn from the invocation of privileges, warranting a reversal of Brown's convictions and a remand for a new trial. Prosecutorial misconduct is evident in the case of Homer Brown, particularly regarding the spousal privilege against testifying in criminal proceedings. Once the government was informed of Brown's intent to invoke this privilege, it should have ceased efforts to call him as a witness or, at a minimum, ensured that the jury was insulated from such actions. The prosecution's attempt to extend the 'joint crimes' exception to include the spousal privilege was deemed insufficient justification for calling Brown to testify, as it highlighted his refusal in front of the jury. Any objections to the spousal privilege should have been addressed pre-trial and outside the jury's presence. Consequently, the convictions and sentences are vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The spousal privilege protects only confidential communications and bars the prosecution from compelling a defendant's spouse to testify against them without the spouse's consent.