United States v. Jackson , 230 F. App'x 425 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                               United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                          June 6, 2007
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 06-30456
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JULIUS L. JACKSON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 1:04-CR-10019-2
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Julius   L.     Jackson    appeals     from   his   conviction      of
    assaulting a fellow prisoner and causing serious bodily harm.                 He
    contends that the Government engaged in misconduct during closing
    arguments by relying on his codefendants’ guilty pleas as evidence
    of his own guilt and that the district court’s instructions did not
    cure the Government’s misconduct.            Jackson did not object to the
    arguments or instructions in the district court; our review thus is
    for plain error.   See FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b).
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
    under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Defense   counsel       elicited    the   testimony     of   Jackson’s
    codefendants that they had pleaded guilty.               Counsel presented a
    theory of the case implicating the codefendants and not Jackson.
    Moreover, the testimony of one codefendant suggested that the
    victim initiated physical contact.             Because Jackson relied on his
    codefendants’ guilty pleas as part of his own case, the Government
    was allowed to use them as substantive evidence of Jackson’s guilt.
    See United States v. Samak, 
    7 F.3d 1196
    , 1198-99 (5th Cir. 1993).
    Moreover,   Jackson     has   not     demonstrated    that   the    prosecutor’s
    remarks were prejudicial.           See United States v. Rocha, 
    196 F.2d 219
    , 234 (5th Cir. 1990).
    The   district       court’s       instruction        regarding   the
    codefendants’     guilty      pleas    was     sufficient    to    mitigate   any
    suggestion by the Government that Jackson should be convicted
    because his codefendants pleaded guilty.                See United States v.
    Mattoni, 
    698 F.2d 691
    , 694 (5th Cir. 1983).            Finally, the timing of
    the instruction in Jackson’s case does not diminish its curative
    effect.   See United States v. Robins, 
    978 F.2d 881
    , 888 (5th Cir.
    1992).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-30456

Citation Numbers: 230 F. App'x 425

Judges: Higginbotham, Jones, Per Curiam, Smith

Filed Date: 6/6/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023