Edelman is a recognized expert in clinical trials of vaccine adjuvants. He is interviewed and quoted widely on vaccines against bioterror agents, influenza, dengue, and other emerging infections. Edelman has co-edited a book, authored peer-reviewed papers, 29 book chapters, 80 abstracts, and has 13 invited editorials and book reviews.
His experiences include investigating the pathogenesis and epidemiology of arbovirus infections, the relationship between malnutrition and immunity, and performing Phase 1 clinical trials for several viral vaccines, including vaccines against the bioterror agents, tularemia and Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis virus. During this time, his clinical research included Lyme disease, maternal vaginal infections as a cause of low infant birth weight, epidemiology of AIDS, and clinical trials of new antifungal drugs.
Clinical trials, vaccines, biologicals, infectious diseases, vector-borne infections, dengue, malaria, Lyme, Chikungunya, bioterror agents, botulinum toxin and smallpox, diarrheal pathogens, hepatitis B, respiratory pathogens, pneumococcus, respiratory syncytial virus, pertussis, influenza, and immunosenescence. Optimizing intradermal administration of cryopreserved plasmodium falciparum sporozoites in controlled human malaria infection. AJTMH ; 93 2 Dengue vaccines: recent developments, ongoing challenges and current candidates.
Expert Review of Vaccines ; 12 8 Successful human infection with P. Long-term safety assessment of live attenuated tetravalent dengue vaccines: deliberations from a WHO technical consultation. Vaccine ; 31 23 Science ; Interference and facilitation between dengue serotypes in a tetravalent live dengue virusvaccine candidate.
Journal of Infectious Diseases ; 3 Antibody and Th1-type cell-mediated immune responses in elderly and young adults immunized with the standard or a high dose influenza vaccine. Vaccine ; Working Group Advisors and peer reviewers. Plasmodium falciparum malaria challenge by the bite of aseptic Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes: results of a randomized infectivity trial.
Agent Hubbell gave Young some photographs of Mrs. Edelman and told him to take the photographs to his client to be sure they had the right woman.
Edelman responded affirmatively. Finally, two minutes after he was informed that Mrs. Edelman was dead, Young placed a one minute telephone call to Edelman's residence. This evidence, along with Young's testimony, amply supported the jury's verdict on both counts. Edelman's primary contention concerning the proof is a legal one. He asserts specific intent that interstate commerce facilities be used in the commission of the murder is an essential element to prove a violation of Sec.
He points out that according to the government's own witness, he had no knowledge that anyone other than Young would commit the offense, and he had no knowledge or intent that Young would use the mails to further the murder plan. Therefore, according to Edelman, the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for either conspiracy or aiding and abetting. There is no case law addressing the application of this issue under Sec. The legislative history, however, reveals that "section A follows the format of present Sec.
Code Cong. News , Section , the Travel Act, provides: "Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, including the mail with intent to Therefore, it is appropriate to review Edelman's conviction in light of this court's interpretations of the Travel Act. In United States v. Perrin, F. There is no requirement that the defendant either have knowledge of the use of interstate facilities or specifically intend to use interstate facilities This view that proof of an interstate nexus is merely a jurisdictional prerequisite, not an essential element of the crime, is in harmony with the majority of circuits and with the legislative history of Sec.
See United States v. Sigalow, F. McPartlin, F. Villano, F. LeFaivre, F. Sellaro, F. Roselli, F. Teitelbaum v. United States, U. However, two recent decisions of this court have arguably adopted the opposite view.
Stanley, F. Insufficient evidence that the defendant had knowledge of the interstate travel or use of the interstate facility was also the basis of reversing a Travel Act conviction in United States v.
Holcomb, F. Neither Stanley nor Holcomb address this court's earlier Perrin decision or any other case law establishing that proof that the defendant had knowledge of the federal nexus is not required to sustain a conviction under the Travel Act. Under the principle of stare decisis, the older case law must control.
See Sharpe v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, F. If this were an action under the Travel Act we would be obliged to follow the prior holding in Perrin, not the subsequent inconsistent decisions in Holcomb and Stanley. In this case, however, we are dealing not with Sec. Although we deal with circuit precedent by analogy rather than as directly controlling, the same rule of stare decisis must be applied.
We thus adopt as the correct analysis of the jurisdictional requirement under Sec. Section A requires proof of specific intent that a murder be committed for pecuniary gain. The jurisdictional language was added to provide for the use of federal investigative and prosecutorial resources in cases where local investigation might be hampered by jurisdictional limitations. It is enough, therefore, that the proof showed the mails were in fact used in the commission of that offense and that Edelman had knowledge of the nature of the substantive offense which he promoted.
The government need not establish that Edelman intended that the mail be used or that he even knew the mail was used. The government presented sufficient evidence on all essential elements of the crimes charged to sustain the convictions.
At the trial, Edelman offered the testimony of Dr. Robert Shuy, a linguistics expert, to prove that Edelman had not hired Young to kill his wife. Shuy testified that he had analyzed conversations in four murder-for-hire cases and had distilled ten common stages in such conversations.
At a hearing conducted outside the jury's presence, Dr. Shuy stated that after analyzing tape-recorded conversations in this case, it was his opinion that Young was not authorized by any client to contract for Mrs. Edelman's murder. The trial court excluded the testimony on two grounds. One, the testimony would merely interpret language in ordinary usage and would not assist the jury. Two, any probative value of the testimony was outweighed by a substantial danger of undue prejudice and confusion.
Edelman maintains that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding this "expert" testimony, and that the exclusion violated his sixth amendment right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. Federal Rule of Evidence gives the trial court broad discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. The trial judge, having heard the testimony, is in the best position to determine whether such testimony would be confusing or misleading to the jury.
Absent an abuse of discretion, his ruling should stand. Considering the highly unusual nature of the opinion evidence proferred about matters within the common knowledge of the jury, there was no abuse of discretion here. During Young's testimony at Edelman's trial, the prosecution questioned him regarding his plea agreement with the government.
The agreement itself was then offered into evidence.
0コメント