313 F.2d 580 (D.C. Cir. 1962), 16882, Dykes v. United States

Docket Nº:16882.
Citation:313 F.2d 580
Party Name:James M.X. DYKES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Case Date:December 20, 1962
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 580

313 F.2d 580 (D.C. Cir. 1962)

James M.X. DYKES, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 16882.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

December 20, 1962

Argued Sept. 24, 1962.

Mr. Jerome Powell, Washington, D.C. (appointed by this court) with whom Mr. Charles L. Bucy, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Daniel A. Rezneck, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U.S. Atty., and Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U.S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U.S. Atty., and John R. Schmertz, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty. at the time the record was filed, also entered appearances for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, WASHINGTON, and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

Page 581

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.

Appellant is one of the four defendants convicted of robbery and second degree murder in the Sheriff Road robbery-killing. He made no confession and did not take the stand. The facts are stated in our opinion in Jackson v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C., 313 F.2d 572 (1962).

He says the evidence against him was not sufficient. We disagree. There was evidence from which the jury might have found that Dykes was with the other appellants immediately before and after the robbery-killing, that he fled to New York under an alias with articles stolen from the get-away car, and that he admitted to an acquaintance that he was an active participant in the robbery.

His contention that the District Court erred to his prejudice in denying a severance raises a substantial question. But 'The general rule is that persons jointly indicted should be tried together. Granting separate trials is a matter of discretion. The mere fact that admissions have been made by one which are not evidence as against the other is not a conclusive ground for ordering the parties to be tried separately.' Lucas v. United States, 70 App.D.C. 92, 93, 104 F.2d 225, 226 (1939), quoting Commonwealth v. Bingham, 158 Mass. 169, 33 N.E. 341, 342 (1893) (Holmes, J.); Hall v. United States, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 166, 168, 168 F.2d 161, 163, 4 A.L.R.2d 1193 (1948), cert. denied, 334 U.S. 853, 68 S.Ct. 1509, 92 L.Ed. 1775 (1948). That the admissions of other defendants implicated appellant Dykes as well does not compel severance. Stewart v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 293...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP