United States v. Kennedy , 46 F. App'x 200 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                            UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
               No. 02-4072
    ROBERT KENNEDY, JR., a/k/a
    Mosquito,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville.
    Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
    (CR-01-25)
    Submitted: July 25, 2002
    Decided: September 23, 2002
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Randy V. Cargill, MAGEE, FOSTER, GOLDSTEIN & SAYERS,
    P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United
    States Attorney, Joseph W. H. Mott, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    2                      UNITED STATES v. KENNEDY
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Kennedy, Jr., was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to dis-
    tribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of
    cocaine base, 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
     (2000), and two counts of distribution
    of cocaine base, 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a) (2000). Kennedy asserts on
    appeal that the court’s reading of selected testimony to the jury during
    deliberations was an abuse of discretion and resulted in reversible
    error. We disagree, and accordingly affirm.
    Kennedy asserts the reading of selected portions of the testimony
    and the failure to read the cross-examination of the witnesses resulted
    in undue emphasis on specific testimony. Kennedy asserts the district
    court’s instructions did not foreclose the jury from emphasizing the
    testimony read to it over the testimony presented at trial. We review
    a district court’s decision to read transcripts to the jury for abuse of
    discretion. United States v. Rodgers, 
    109 F.3d 1138
    , 1140 (6th Cir.
    1997). A decision to read transcripts to the jury must be accompanied
    by safeguards. 
    Id. at 1144-45
    . There is no inflexible rule requiring the
    court to read cross-examination testimony of the witness whose testi-
    mony is read to the jury. United States v. Wright-Baker, 
    784 F.2d 161
    ,
    174 (3d Cir. 1986). "Each case is decided on its facts, and it is the
    appellant’s burden to show that the trial judge acted unreasonably."
    United States v. Bennet, 
    75 F.3d 40
    , 46 (1st Cir. 1996).
    We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permit-
    ting the reading of the portions of the testimony requested by the jury.
    We further find the district court’s instructions were adequate to pre-
    vent the jury from placing undue emphasis on the read testimony.
    We affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
    sented in the material before the court and argument would not aid in
    the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-4072

Citation Numbers: 46 F. App'x 200

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Gregory

Filed Date: 9/23/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024