U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1970

United States v. Joseph P. Lucia, (2 Cases)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided March 30, 1970 · Brown, Wisdom, Gewin, Bell, Thornberry, Coleman, Goldberg, Ainsworth, Godbold, Dyer, Simpson, Morgan, Clark

423 F.2d 697; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10085 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Charles Alan Wright, Austin, Tex., Marvin K. Collie, Harry M. Reasoner, Travis C. Broesche, Frank F. Smith, Jr., Vinson, Elkins, Searls & Connally, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant Joseph P. Lucia., Morton L. Susman, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for the United States.

Cases that cite this one

23 later published cases cite this decision. The 22 that cite it most often are listed here.

Richard Gordon Bannister v. United States (3d Cir. 1971)
Dick Andrew Gee v. United States (5th Cir. 1971)
United States v. Russo (District Court, D. New Jersey 1973)
Joseph P. Lucia v. United States of America (5th Cir. 1971)
Raul v. Castano v. United States (5th Cir. 1970)
United States v. Andrade (5th Cir. 1996)
A. H. Alexander and Mary Alexander v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (5th Cir. 1973)
Willie Lee Henderson v. Lewis S. Tollett, Warden, Brushy Mountain State Farm (6th Cir. 1972)
United States v. Lewis (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1972)
Robert Harrington v. United States (5th Cir. 1971)
Jose Manuel Franchi-Alfaro Negrin v. United States (5th Cir. 1971)
Rodolfo Munoz Perez v. United States (5th Cir. 1971)
United States v. Nick Scaglione (5th Cir. 1971)
Joseph Hupert v. United States (8th Cir. 1971)
United States v. Houssein (District Court, D. Maryland 1971)
Clyde John Brooks v. United States (5th Cir. 1970)
United States v. Carlos A. Fernandez (5th Cir. 1970)
Frank Sepulveda Casados v. United States (5th Cir. 1970)
Gaines Ted Huson v. Chevron Oil Company v. Otis Engineering Corporation, Third-Party (3d Cir. 1970)
State v. Chapman (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)
Gee v. United States (District Court, S.D. Texas 1970)
Angelini v. United States (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1970)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Court en banc is unanimously of the opinion that the panel, 416 F.2d 920, correctly decided that Marchetti v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 and Grosso v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 should be applied retroactively. See Meadows v. United States, 9 Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 795 (citing Lucia with approval); United States v. Miller, 4 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 1100. The Court therefore affirms the judgment of the panel.

The Court also finds that there is no necessary conflict between Lucia and United States v. Scardino, 5 Cir. 1969, 414 F.2d 925.

II.

A majority of the Court concludes that because of the holding on the retroactive effect of Marehetti and Grosso there is no need to discuss waiver. Section I of the panel’s decision is therefore withdrawn.

Judge Wisdom takes the position that the Court must dispose of the question of waiver before reaching the question of the retroactivity of Marehetti and Grosso. He adheres to the view the panel expressed: Ordinarily a plea of guilty waives defenses and privileges; there was no waiver in this case, for Lucia could not understandingly waive his privilege against self-incrimination in a prosecution for violation of the federal laws taxing illegal wagers, since at the time he pleaded guilty the Supreme Court had not decided Marehetti and Grosso.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.