United States v. Kress, 71-2427.
| Citation | 451 F.2d 576 |
| Decision Date | 20 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2427.,71-2427. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James KRESS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Archie M. Dicksion, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Chief, Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BARNES, BROWNING and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a conviction of armed bank robbery. Appellant urges four errors — (1) the lack of a speeedy trial, (2) the lack of jurisdiction in the government to file a second indictment (similar to the first), (3) prejudicial error because the defendant appeared before the jury with handcuffs on, and (4) the insufficiency of the evidence. None of the alleged errors entitled appellant to have his conviction by a jury reversed, and we affirm:
We shortly state the reasons: the delay in the trial was largely due to appellant's absence from the Central District of California, due to his trial and conviction in New Jersey for bank robbery; his trial and conviction in Northern California for bank robbery there; and his procedural delays with respect to motions; and among other things, his escape from custody for over two months.
Appellant urges he was prejudiced by delays in this trial because three alibi witnesses to his alleged attendance at a birthday party in Philadelphia had either been killed or rendered mentally incompetent. But five witnesses for the appellant testified on his behalf as to the alleged alibi — hence the missing witnesses' testimony could have only been cumulative, at best. This fact, as well as others, renders the appellant's reliance on Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 37-38, 90 S.Ct. 1564, 26 L.Ed.2d 26 (1970) completely inapposite.
Appellant's second point is likewise completely without merit. Rule 48(a) Fed.R.Crim.Proc. specifically authorizes such dismissal.
Appellant's third point is likewise without merit. A twice convicted bank robber who had already once escaped custody may be tried at his third trial with sufficient precautions to prevent a second escape. This is a matter of discretion within the province of the trial judge. "For this court to question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v. Cardwell
...of the "garb of innocence" cases includes those involving a defendant who stands trial in shackles.5 See, e. g., United States v. Kress, 451 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Thompson, 432 F.2d 997 (4th Cir. 1970); United States v. Samuel, 431 F.2d 610 (4th Cir. 1970); Woodards v. ......
-
State v. Finch
...presented a threat of escape, a threat of injury to others, or had disrupted the trial court proceedings. See United States v. Kress, 451 F.2d 576 (9th Cir.1971) (defendant escaped custody for two months); State v. Tolley, 290 N.C. 349, 226 S.E.2d 353 (1976) (defendant attempted escape duri......
-
Spain v. Rushen
...escapes of all time. The trial judge, therefore, undoubtedly was concerned that Spain might try to escape. See United States v. Kress, 451 F.2d 576, 577 (9th Cir.1971) (shackles may be necessary to prevent escape), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 923, 92 S.Ct. 1789, 32 L.Ed.2d 123 (1972); United Sta......
-
State v. Hartzog
...that have permitted shackling, the specific facts relating to the individual have been found to justify the practice. United States v. Kress, 451 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1971) (defendant had previously escaped from custody for 2 months); United States v. Samuel, 433 F.2d 663 (4th Cir. 1970) (tri......