gditor - Voice For The Defense Online

On appeal, the Court held that the "burden of proof" charge was significantlydissimilar from a "failure to testify" charge and did not satisfythe requirements of the Fifth amendment. U.S. v. Bain, 596 F.2d 120 (5thCir. 1979). The Court also held that under the facts of the case, theerror was not harmless error under Chapman V. California, 386 U.S. 18(1967).U.S. V. CORBETT, No. 83-2758, Vacated & Remanded, Per Curiam,9/5/84 (Slip Op. 58161GUILTY PLEAS/RULE 11: Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, D pleadedguilty to two counts and was sentenced. On direct appeal, D asserted thatthe government had breached the written plea bargain agreement. Althoughthe Court quickly rejected D's argument, it - sua sponte reviewed the Rule 11transcript and found that the District Court had totally failed to ensurethat the D understood the nature of the charges against him. The DistrictCourt did not read the charge to the D and did not even tell the D what theelements of the offense were. Rather, he merely asked the D if he understoodthe charges. Since the nature of the charge is one of the three coreconcerns in Rule 11, F.R.C.P., U.S. v. Dayton, 604 F.2d 931, 940 (5th Cir.19791, and there was a total failure to address it, the case was vacatedand remanded to the District Court with instructions to allow the D toplead anew. See also U.S. v. Patterson, 739 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1984).TUBWELL V. GRIFFITH, No. 83-4659, Aff'd, Judge Davis,9/24/84 (Slip Op. 5913)PRISONER RIGHTS: D, incarcerated in a Mississippi prison, violated a regulation.After a hearing, his custody status was reduced. As a result ofhis new custody status, he was required to wear leg shackles and waistchains when he used the prison library. Thus, when D went to the library,his a b i E to walk was somewhat impeded and he had the free use of onlyone hand. Both hands were freed, however, when he wanted to use a typewriterin the library.D filed suit and sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin theuse of the restraints when he was in the library. D argued that the restraintsobstructed his access to the library, hindered his ability topursue litigation, and thereby denied him access to the Courts. TheMagistrate and District Judge denied relief.On appeal, the Court held that D had failed to demonstrate that therestraints effectively blocked meaningful access to the courts. The Courtconcluded that the restraints entailed, at most, a de minimus interferencewith D's constitutional right to access to the courts since he was able toprosecute the instant lawsuit.,November 1984/VOICEfor the Defense SDR-7