Filed: Mar. 18, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: , A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and Dina Michael, Chaitowitz, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.stated by the district court. The Assistant United States Attorney who represented the, government on appeal did not represent the government at, trial.
March 18, 1993 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 92-1935
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
DENNIS BONNEAU,
Defendant, Appellant.
ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this Court issued on February 24, 1993 is amended
as follows:
Page 2, line 9: Insert a footnote after the word "testify" to
read:
"The Assistant United States Attorney who represented the
government on appeal did not represent the government at trial."
February 24, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 92-1935
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
DENNIS BONNEAU,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
Peter Goldberger, Pamela A. Wilk and Law Office of Alan Ellis on
brief for appellant.
A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and Dina Michael
Chaitowitz, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record
and briefs and find no merit substantially for the reasons
stated by the district court. We pause to add only two
observations.
1. The prosecutor's reference to Ms. Aguiar's
recent trial, immediately followed by the inquiry whether Ms.
Aguiar had ever told anyone her present version, was, in all
probability, an improper comment on Aguiar's failure to
testify1. We are convinced, however, by the strength of the
evidence against defendant and the court's curative
instruction that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt, and the court did not err in denying defendant's
motion for a mistrial.
2. The fact that Aguiar had been convicted of the
charges for which defendant was on trial was properly
admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 609 for impeachment. Here,
where defendant said he had no objection to the conviction's
admission, defendant did not object to the question asked or
request a limiting instruction, and the prosecutor did not
argue any improper inference should be drawn, it was not
plain error for the court to fail sua sponte to give a
limiting instruction. United States v. Ramirez, 963 F.2d
693, 702-03 (5th Cir.) (no error to omit sua sponte
instruction concerning co-defendants' guilty pleas), cert.
denied, 113 S. Ct. 388 (1992); United States v. Sides, 944
1. The Assistant United States Attorney who represented the
government on appeal did not represent the government at
trial.
F.2d 1554, 1561-62 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. De La
Cruz, 902 F.2d 121, 124 (1st Cir. 1980). Nor did counsel's
failure to object or request a limiting instruction
constitute ineffective assistance. See United States v.
Rogers, 939 F.2d 591, 594-95 (8th Cir.) (tactical decision
not to request limiting instruction on effect of guilty
plea), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 609 (1991).
Affirmed.
-3-
