USA v. HINKSON
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. HINKSON, No. 05-30303, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Procter Hug, Jr., M. Margaret McKeown, and William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges.
W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
Following a two-week trial in federal district court in Boise, Idaho, a jury convicted David Roland Hinkson of soliciting the murder of three federal officials. The government’s star witness supporting the conviction was Elven Joe Swisher. Wearing a Purple Heart lapel pin on the witness stand, Swisher testified that he had told Hinkson that he was a Korean War combat veteran and that Hinkson, impressed by Swisher’s military exploits, solicited him to kill the officials. The government maintained in its opening statement to the jury that Swisher was a Korean War combat veteran, and it maintained throughout the trial that Hinkson’s understanding of Swisher’s military exploits showed that he was serious in his solicitations of Swisher. The government now concedes that Swisher neither served in combat nor earned any personal military commendations, and that Swisher presented a forged military document in court and repeatedly lied under oath at trial about his military record. On appeal, Hinkson makes three arguments. First, he argues that the district court wrongly precluded him from introducing evidence showing that Swisher presented a forged document and lied on the stand. Second, he argues that the . . .
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
There is no honor in lying about one’s military record. Indeed, Elven Joe Swisher joins a long line of luminaries accused of puffing and distorting their military service. But a witness discredited on a collateral issue–his military service–is not grounds to reverse a murder-for-hire conviction that was corroborated by independent evidence, particularly when defense counsel had full opportunity to crossexamine the witness on that subject. The question in this case is whether David Hinkson solicited Swisher to murder a federal judge and other public officers, not whether Swisher lied about his military service. The district court determined that information about Swisher’s military service was not “new”. . .