435 F.2d 725 (6th Cir. 1970), 20007, United States v. Riley

Docket Nº:20007-20008.
Citation:435 F.2d 725
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clinton RILEY, Jr., and Dennis Hodrick, Defendants-Appellants.
Case Date:December 09, 1970
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Page 725

435 F.2d 725 (6th Cir. 1970)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,


Clinton RILEY, Jr., and Dennis Hodrick, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 20007-20008.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

December 9, 1970

David A. X. Bradley (Court appointed), Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief for appellants.

William W. Milligan, U.S. Atty., Byron E. Trapp, Asst. U.S. Atty., Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief for appellee.

Page 726

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and EDWARDS and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

EDWARDS, Circuit Judge.

Appellants are two of three defendants who were indicted for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (1964) for armed robbery of a bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in Evendale, Ohio, on March 7, 1969. All three of the defendants were convicted after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, and sentenced to 15 years.

On these appeals it is undisputed that the Evendale Branch of the Fifth Third Union Trust Bank of Cincinnati was held up on March 7, 1969, by three men-- two of whom escaped in one car, and the third, defendant Jerry Wynn, was captured while seeking to escape in another car. Appellants concede that Wynn was one of the bandits but deny that they were the other two. However, at trial, bank personnel definitely identified both Riley and Hodrick as participants in the robbery. Riley's fingerprint was found on an envelope in Wynn's pocket when he was arrested. When Hodrick's car was searched, a memorandum was found on which was written the license numbers of the two stolen cars which were used in the robbery.

Both appellants contend that the District Judge committed reversible error by failing to grant their motion for severance. The indictment in this case, however, charged that the three persons named (including the two appellants) committed one bank robbery on one specific day. Joinder of such charges is specifically authorized by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, of course, authorizes a motion for severance on a showing of prejudice.

No statements of codefendants were introduced at this trial, nor was there any denial of the right of confrontation. Cf. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).

On this record we find no...

To continue reading