Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    United States v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Williams appealed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. His attorney submitted an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious issues for appeal. The only potential issue considered was a comment made at trial referencing Williams invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. However, the court found the comment did not violate Williams' due process rights as it was an isolated remark not intentionally elicited, and the jury was instructed to disregard it. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and found no grounds to overturn the conviction. Williams' conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    21 views3 pages
    Robert Williams appealed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. His attorney submitted an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious issues for appeal. The only potential issue considered was a comment made at trial referencing Williams invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. However, the court found the comment did not violate Williams' due process rights as it was an isolated remark not intentionally elicited, and the jury was instructed to disregard it. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and found no grounds to overturn the conviction. Williams' conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-03-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-4515

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Robert Williams appealed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. His attorney submitted an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious issues for appeal. The only potential issue considered was a comment made at trial referencing Williams invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. However, the court found the comment did not violate Williams' due process rights as it was an isolated remark not intentionally elicited, and the jury was instructed to disregard it. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and found no grounds to overturn the conviction. Williams' conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    21 views3 pages

    United States v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Williams appealed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. His attorney submitted an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious issues for appeal. The only potential issue considered was a comment made at trial referencing Williams invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. However, the court found the comment did not violate Williams' due process rights as it was an isolated remark not intentionally elicited, and the jury was instructed to disregard it. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and found no grounds to overturn the conviction. Williams' conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    ROBERT L. WILLIAMS,
    Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 01-4515

    Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
    Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
    (CR-00-922)
    Submitted: January 31, 2002
    Decided: March 12, 2002
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    Robert J. Harte, ROBERT J. HARTE, P.C., Aiken, South Carolina,
    for Appellant. William Kenneth Witherspoon, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert L. Williams appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
    841(a) (1994). Williams noted a timely appeal to his conviction and
    his counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
    738, 744 (1967), in which he represents that there are no arguable
    issues of merit in this appeal. Nonetheless, in his brief, counsel considered and rejected the possibility that the district court erred in
    denying counsels motion for a mistrial following a reference at trial
    to Williams invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain
    silent. The time for filing a supplemental brief has passed and Williams has not filed a brief despite being advised of his right to do so
    and obtaining an extension of the deadline for filing. Because we find
    counsels assignment of error to be without merit and can discern no
    other reversible error in the record on appeal, we affirm Williams
    conviction and sentence.
    On appeal, Williams counsel suggests that a comment, volunteered by one of the arresting officers during cross-examination indicating that Williams opted to exercise his right to remain silent upon
    arrest, violated his rights under Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619
    (1976). In determining whether the comment constitutes reversible
    error, a court must consider: (1) how the prosecutor used the postarrest silence; (2) which party opened the line of questioning; (3)
    other evidence of defendants guilt; (4) the frequency and intensity of
    the prosecutors reference; and (5) the opportunity for the district
    court to grant a mistrial or give a curative instruction to the jury. Williams v. Zahradnick, 632 F.2d 353, 361-62 (4th Cir. 1980). Subjecting
    the record to that analysis, we have no difficulty in concluding that
    the witnesss stray remark was harmless. The singular comment was
    not intentionally elicited by the prosecution and the district judge
    struck the comment and instructed the jury that the fact that Williams
    declined to make a statement was not a matter for their consideration.
    Williamss due process rights were not adversely affected. See id.
    As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the entire
    record and all pertinent documents. We have considered all possible

    UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS

    issues presented by this record and conclude that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for this appeal. Pursuant to the plan adopted by the
    Fourth Circuit Judicial Council in implementation of the Criminal
    Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. 3006A (1994), this court requires
    that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
    Supreme Court for further review. If requested by the client to do so,
    counsel should prepare a timely petition for writ of certiorari, unless
    counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous. In that case,
    counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
    the client.
    Williams conviction and sentence are affirmed. We dispense with
    oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like