Grant v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | 21058.,No. 21057,21057 |
| Citation | 371 F.2d 400 |
| Parties | Charles GRANT, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. James HENRY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert L. Schneider, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant Charles Grant.
Morris Lavine, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant James Henry.
Manuel L. Real, U. S. Atty., John K. Van de Kamp, Chief Asst. U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. Chief, Crim. Div., Ronald S. Morrow, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES, JERTBERG and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing Denied March 6, 1967 in No. 21058.
These two appeals arise from convictions in one joint seven count indictment charging appellants and others with conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371); receiving stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce (18 U.S.C. § 2313); and aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2). One defendant turned state's evidence (Wooten) and he and defendants Campbell, Tucker and Taylor were convicted and did not appeal. Grant was found guilty of Counts 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, and Henry of Counts 1, 2 and 4. Grant was sentenced to five concurrent three year terms, and Henry to three concurrent three year terms. Our jurisdiction on appeal rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Appellant Henry raises but one point, the insufficiency of the evidence to convict. Grant raises the same point, and also that he was denied adequate representation by counsel.
The claimed insufficiency of the evidence as to each appellant rests on the proposition that the evidence of guilt rests largely on the testimony of codefendant Wooten, an accomplice; and that his testimony was "unbelievable." We do not find it so. In this circuit it is unnecessary to corroborate the evidence of an accomplice. But were that our rule, we do not find any lack of corroborating circumstances and evidence to supplement the accomplice's story, and to permit the trial court to conclude the respective defendants' guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Having discussed this in some detail at the time of oral argument, we need not here repeat it.
Appellant Grant claims a lack of representation by his counsel because of inadequate time to prepare a defense. No motion for a continuance on behalf of Grant was made by his counsel on March 8, 1965. On that date, the matter was continued to the next day, and defendant Grant's attorney was offered an opportunity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hilliard, 77 Cr. 35 (WCC).
... ... III ... Osorio has moved, in the alternative, for a severance of Count One from Count Two under Rule 14, F.R.Crim.P. Rule 14 authorizes severance "if it appears that a defendant * * * is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants * * *." The grant or denial of a Rule 14 motion is a matter for the Court's discretion, United States v. Ricco, 549 F.2d 264 at 273 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. Falange, 426 F.2d 930 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 906, 91 S.Ct. 149, 27 L.Ed.2d 144 436 F. Supp. 75 (1970), although that discretion is ... ...
-
U.S. v. Chapin
... Page 1274 ... 515 F.2d 1274 ... 169 U.S.App.D.C. 303 ... UNITED STATES of America ... Dwight L. CHAPIN, Appellant ... No. 74-1648 ... United States Court of ... claims error in the trial court's admission of certain evidence and that court's failure to grant a change of venue or to conduct a thorough enough voir dire. 2 ... Chapin was ... ...
-
U.S. v. Eddy
... Page 564 ... 737 F.2d 564 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Terrance Alan EDDY, Defendant-Appellant ... No ... ...
-
U.S. v. Farmer
...137 F.3d 1265 ... 98 CJ C.A.R. 1331 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Michele FARMER, Defendant-Appellant ... No. 96-5190 ... ...