United States v. Neal

Decision Date22 April 1965
Docket NumberNo. 15873.,15873.
Citation344 F.2d 254
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Brady NEAL, Defendant-Appellant,
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

L. Barry Cors, Cincinnati, Ohio (court appointed), for appellant.

G. Wilson Horde, Asst. U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., for appellee, J. H. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., on the brief.

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and CECIL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant-appellant, Robert Brady Neal, appeals from a judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on all counts of a three-count indictment. Each count of the indictment charged the defendant with fraudulently transporting in interstate commerce, from Knoxville, Tennessee, to Washington, D. C., a falsely made check, in the amount of $125, dated July 16, 1963 (in the third count, the check was dated July 17th), drawn on the Security Bank of Washington, D. C., payable to Robert Neal and purporting to be signed by Walter Lester. It is alleged in each count that transportation was accomplished by depositing the checks in the Hamilton National Bank, Park National Bank, Magnolia Branch, and Tennessee Valley Bank, North Knoxville Branch, respectively.

The evidence supporting the three counts of the indictment shows that an identical plan or scheme was followed in connection with depositing a falsely made check in each bank named in the indictment. On July 16, 1963, or within a day or two of that date, a man, claimed by the government to be the appellant Neal, entered each bank and opened a savings account with a five dollar cash deposit. A day or two following this, the same man entered each bank and deposited a check for $125, less five dollars in cash, to the savings account previously opened. These checks were all drawn on the Security Bank of Washington, D. C., payable to Robert Neal, with the purported signature of Walter Lester. A day or two following this deposit, the same person again entered each bank and withdrew from each savings account $100 in cash. The checks were returned from the Security Bank in Washington with the notation "No account."

During the progress of the trial, on cross-examination of the appellant Neal, counsel for the government asked the following question: "Mr. Neal, I will ask you if on July the 5th, 1963, in the City of Durham, North Carolina, at the Guaranty State Bank, if you did not open a savings account in the amount of $5.00 and on July 8, 1963 deposit a check in the amount of $125.00 dated July 7th, said check being made on the Security Bank made payable to Robert Neal. * * *"

An objection was made to the question, the jury was excused and the court conducted a hearing concerning the relevancy of the question. Counsel for the government stated that he could show nine instances of similar offenses having been committed by Neal in North Carolina and Georgia. He had only photostatic copies of the checks and no one from the respective banks to identify either the transactions or the appellant. The trial judge gave serious consideration to this question. His procedure on the admissibility of the controverted evidence consumed twenty-six pages of the record. He held that the subject of the evidence in controversy was competent as bearing on a pattern or plan of operation, but without the original checks and without representatives of the respective banks to identify the checks and tell the circumstances under which they were received, the evidence could not be admitted.

It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v. Goodin
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 22 February 2005
    ... ... § 2-318 cmt. 2. Some states refused to enact this version of section 2-318, and others adopted nonuniform versions of the ... See Groppel Co., Inc. v. United States Gypsum Co., 616 S.W.2d 49, 59 (Mo.Ct.App.1981) ... Yet others have focused on the point that ... ...
  • U.S. v. Woods
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 3 January 1980
    ...1970); United States v. Wells, 431 F.2d 432 (6th Cir. 1970); United States v. Birns, 395 F.2d 943 (6th Cir. 1968); United States v. Neal, 344 F.2d 254 (6th Cir. 1965). Assuming that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a jumpsuit, ski mask, goggles and stolen vehi......
  • Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v. Goodin, No. 82S05-0406-CV-279 (IN 2/22/2004)
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 22 February 2004
    ... ... § 2-318 cmt. 2. Some states refused to enact this version of section 2-318, and others adopted nonuniform versions of the ... See Groppel Co., Inc. v. United States Gypsum Co., 616 S.W.2d 49, 59 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). Yet others have focused on the point that ... ...
  • Manning v. Rose
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 13 December 1974
    ...intent, absence of mistake or accident, or identity. Turner v. United States, 426 F.2d 480, 483-484 (6th Cir. 1970); United States v. Neal, 344 F.2d 254, 255 (6th Cir. 1965) (dictum); McCormick, Evidence 190 (1972); accord, Proposed Fed.Rule of Evidence 404(b); Uniform Rule of Evidence 55. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT