Does the prosecution introduce evidence of cocaine to the jury during cross-examination of witnesses?

MultiRegion, United States of America

The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Knuckles, 581 F.2d 305 (2nd Cir. 1978):

The defendants in the case at bar were sufficiently apprised of the charges laid against them in Count Two of the indictment. It was the defense, not the prosecution, which introduced the evidence of cocaine during their cross-examination of Government witnesses. The Government's case related to a heroin processing and packaging operation only in the late summer and early autumn of 1976. 8 Further, the Only variance alleged by the appellants is the exact nature of the substance involved, heroin or cocaine; the time, place, people, and object proved at trial are in all respects those alleged in Count Two of the indictment. Whether the substance was cocaine or heroin makes no difference under 21 U.S.C. 841, the statute cited in Count Two of the indictment. Such a variance, affecting neither the Government's case nor the sentence imposed, 9 cannot have prejudiced the ability of the defendants to make their defense to the charge that they violated 21 U.S.C. 841. United States v. Garguilo, 554 F.2d 59, 63 (2d Cir. 1977) ("A material variance occurs only if 'the prosecutor has attempted to rely at the trial upon theories and evidence that were not "fairly embraced in the charges made in the indictment." ' "); See, e. g., United States v. Marshall, 153 U.S.App.D.C. 83, 471 F.2d 1051 (1972). Nor is there any chance of a second prosecution for the same offense. Count Two names the defendants, the date and place of the crime, and the crime alleged. Read in conjunction with the charge to the jury, there can be no doubt that the

Page 312

Other Questions


Is there a difference between the testimony of a witness and the evidence of evidence of the witness's free will? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
If a witness is intimidated into giving evidence to a grand jury, is that intimidation offset by the introduction of the witness's prior testimony? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Is there any evidence that a Public Prosecutions Officer (PRRA) ignored, misinterpreted or ignored or ignored the evidence? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
What is the test for a motion for a new trial where newly discovered evidence indicates perjury by a prosecution witness at trial? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does the prosecution have a burden of proving its case against the defense in the context of the prosecution's argument that the defense had framed the prosecution on behalf of the defence? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Can the Crown argue that answers obtained on the cross-examination of a witness can be used to attack the credibility of another witness? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
When will the failure of the prosecution to hold a lineup be considered a factor in assessing the suggestiveness of the procedures used by the prosecution? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does a witness have a right not to be cross-examined on the evidence of bribery? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does the use of testimony under the federal immunity statute apply to the prosecution of an immunized witness? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for admissibility of evidence in the context of evidence that is not logically tending to prove a point? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
X



Whitelogo nobg 300dpi sm


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."


Trusted by top litigators from across North America.