Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

480 F.2d 1222

Docket No. 73-1094.

United States v. Kitchen

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted June 12, 1973.

Decided June 27, 1973.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1973-06-27

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 1979

11 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The record demonstrates that the government at a pretrial proceeding assured both the court and defendant that the informant, Sammy Floyd, would be available to testify at trial. The record shows that Floyd did not appear at trial and the trial court excused the government from producing the informant on the government’s statement that Floyd’s whereabouts were unknown at the time of trial. The record demonstrates that Floyd may have possessed material knowledge relating to the defendant’s participation in the charge of his distributing cocaine on September 24, 1971.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States v. Kitchen

“The government has failed to prove that “it was genuinely unable through reasonable efforts to produce * * informant Sammy Floyd at trial. The government took no “steps to see to it that [Floyd] would be or become unavailable as a witness.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States v. Kitchen

Relies on United States v. Pollard

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1973-06-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1223David P. Murrin, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.

¶2J. Earl Cudd, Asst. U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

¶3Before GIBSON, LAY and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

¶4ORDER

¶5This cause having been briefed and argued and submitted to this court on its merits on June 12, 1973, is hereby remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing consistent with United States v. Pollard, 8 Cir., 479 F.2d 310, order filed May 18, 1973.

¶6The record demonstrates that the government at a pretrial proceeding assured both the court and defendant that the informant, Sammy Floyd, would be available to testify at trial. The record shows that Floyd did not appear at trial and the trial court excused the government from producing informant on the government’s statement that Floyd’s whereabouts were unknown at the time of trial. The record demonstrates that Floyd may have possessed material knowledge relating to the defendant’s participation in the charge of his distributing cocaine on September 24, 1971.

¶7Therefore in accordance with Pollard, we remand the cause

“ ‘to the trial court for the [limited] purpose of holding a further hearing at which the government shall be given the opportunity of proving if such be the case, that it was genuinely unable through reasonable efforts to produce [Floyd] and also, if such be the case, that the government did not take steps to see to it that [Floyd] would be or become unavailable as a witness. The burden of proving these things should be on the government.’ ”

¶8• The court upon remand may hear such evidence as it deems necessary and proper, and then shall certify its findings to this court.

/480/f2d/1222 · .json · Public domain