United States v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 08 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2529. Summary Calendar.,71-2529. Summary Calendar. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Michael SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John Donald Wessel, Boca Raton, Fla. (Court Appointed), Fox, Brannen & Wessel, Boca Raton, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Marsha L. Lyons, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before, THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Richard Michael Sullivan appeals from a jury verdict of guilty on a two-count indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) and (e). We affirm.
Sullivan first contends that repeated displays of picture spreads to eyewitnesses of the crime were impermissibly suggestive and gave rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, contrary to the standards laid down in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), because upon the initial display, some of the witnesses either identified someone else or no one at all. The trouble for this contention is that the record fails to make clear how many of the witnesses who later identified Sullivan actually observed more than one photo spread containing his picture. Rather, the evidence indicates that only one witness out of the many who testified actually viewed successive photo displays containing pictures of Sullivan.
The trial judge followed the identification procedure set forth in United States v. Sutherland, 428 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir. 1970) and determined that each display standing alone was not impermissibly suggestive. We have viewed the displays and concur with this finding. Nor, in the totality of the circumstances of this case, were the successive displays impermissibly suggestive in their cumulative impact. Cf. United States v. Ballard, 423 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1970). Any proof of misidentification or hesitation in identification was properly left to the jury's consideration.
Sullivan next argues that a suitcase belonging to a co-defendant, Ansin, was erroneously admitted as evidence against him. Specifically he contends that the trial judge admitted the suitcase without an offer by the Government, and further that the suitcase was not in any way connected with him. He claims that the admission of the suitcase was extremely prejudicial to him since it contained towels with markings of cosmetic face cream, a wig, notes of plans of the robbery, and other items either used in or concerned with the robbery. Although it is true that the Government never made a formal tender of the suitcase, it is evident from the record that the Government intended to introduce the suitcase for it had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. McCullah, s. 82-5222
...may be appealed otherwise. See United States v. Todd, 475 F.2d 757, 759 n. 3 (5th Cir.1973) (per curiam); United States v. Sullivan, 456 F.2d 1273, 1275 (5th Cir.1972) (per curiam). As to the existence of an administrative remedy under the act, both the Second Circuit and the D.C. Circuit h......
-
United States v. Bell, 71-2234.
...the display and concur with the trial judge's finding. The tenuousness of the identification was for the jury. United States v. Sullivan, 456 F.2d 1273 (5th Cir. 1972). Bell next argues that the trial judge erred in not making available to him certain alleged Jencks Act documents. The trial......
-
U.S. v. Smith, Crim.A. G-99-5.
...not decide, the question "whether a trial judge's decision on compensation under [the CJA] is appealable at all." United States v. Sullivan, 456 F.2d 1273, 1275 (5th Cir.1972); see also United States v. Todd, 475 F.2d 757, 759 n. 3 (5th Cir.1973) (citing Sullivan, and declining to review ad......
-
U.S. v. Breeland, 94-40358
...in an appeal from the defendant's conviction. See United States v. Todd, 475 F.2d 757, 759 n. 3 (5th Cir.1973); United States v. Sullivan, 456 F.2d 1273, 1275 (5th Cir.1972).2 Breeland also contends that his violation of Louisiana's excessive smoke statute, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 32:352 C (W......