USA v. Fletcher, No. 06-30622 (5th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-30622 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARL FLETCHER, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:05-CR-50082 -------------------Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carl Fletcher was found guilty on a single-count indictment charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm. As his sole argument on appeal, Fletcher argues that the jury heard the testimony concerning the nature of his prior felony drug conviction in violation of the holding in Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997). We review the district court s evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Insaulgarat, 378 F.3d 456, 464 (5th Cir. 2004). * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 06-30622 -2Under Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 174, a district court abuses its discretion if it admits the name or nature of a stipulated prior conviction when such is offered solely to prove the prior-conviction element of the offense, and its introduction raises a risk of a verdict tainted by improper considerations. The instant case is distinguishable from Old Chief because the Government did not seek to introduce evidence of the prior conviction solely to prove the prior-conviction element of the offense. Rather, the Government elicited the testimony in order to establish that Williams might have a bias in favor of Fletcher. testimony. 1997). The potential bias of a witness is always relevant United States v. Powell, 124 F.3d 655, 661 (5th Cir. As in the instant case, evidence of bias may include testimony concerning the prior history between a witness and a defendant where the history establishes a possible motive for slanted testimony. See, e.g., id. The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the testimony. 378 F.3d at 464. AFFIRMED. See Insaulgarat,
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
