377 F.2d 508 (6th Cir. 1967), 16686, United States v. McElrath

Docket Nº:16686.
Citation:377 F.2d 508
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Drew McELRATH, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:May 19, 1967
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 508

377 F.2d 508 (6th Cir. 1967)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

John Drew McELRATH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16686.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 19, 1967

Page 509

Charles B. Ginocchio (Court Appointed), Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

Thomas A. Williams, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., J. H. Reddy, U.S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., on brief, for appellee.

Before EDWARDS and McCREE, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.

EDWARDS, Circuit Judge.

These are direct appeals from convictions for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (1964) and 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (1964) by robbing a federally insured bank and transporting a stolen car across a state line. Appellant received consecutive sentences of 15 years and 4 years after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Southern Division.

Subsequent to trial and sentence, appellant's then court-appointed counsel filed a motion for new trial claiming prejudicial error in the admission of testimony from a woman as to whom defendant-appellant claimed a common-law marital relationship, and as to pretrial and trial publicity. These were denied and the claim of appeal was filed belatedly but ultimately allowed on an order by a District Judge.

Subsequent thereto, motion for appointment of counsel on appeal and the furnishing of a transcript was filed before this court. On opposition being filed by the goverment to the latter, the transcript portion of the motion was granted limited to the common-law wife issue.

Counsel appointed by this court, however, received a lengthy communique from his client and proceeded to advance before us in his brief not the two issues which were the subject of motion for new trial, but ten issues. Without passing on the procedural errors which this sometimes in pro. per. appellate record presents, we elect to consider all ten issues.

At trial appellant's co-defendant was identified as the man who entered and robbed the bank. Government witnesses,

Page 510

however, identified appellant as being in the get-away car. The government also produced witnesses who directly and by inference implicated him in the robbery by his actions or statements before and after the robbery. In our opinion, absent prejudicial error, there was ample evidence to require our affirmance of the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP