Malone v. United States, 12792.
| Citation | 238 F.2d 851 |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 12792.,12792. |
| Parties | John Raymond MALONE and Everett Roy Smith, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
James H. Van Matre, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellants.
Loren E. Van Brocklin, U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, Sumner Canary, U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief, for appellee.
Before ALLEN, McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Defendants Malone and Smith, together with one other codefendant, were convicted of bank robbery in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a, d).1 Counsel appointed by this court to represent defendants in their appeal has given diligent and intelligent consideration to the case. However, with one exception, the points raised are questions of fact which we deem it unnecessary to discuss. No reversible error is shown. Defendants were represented in the District Court by counsel of their own choice, the identification was by eyewitnesses, was direct and positive, and the trial was fair.
Counsel for defendants urges that, within the doctrine of Schwachter v. United States, 237 F.2d 640, 644, decided by this court on November 2, 1956, the District Court committed reversible error in summarizing the facts of the case to the jury. The Schwachter case held under the general rule that "the trial judge in a criminal case can not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses and take from the jury a controverted question of material fact, no matter how strongly he may be of the opinion that the evidence has established the fact beyond a reasonable doubt."
In the instant case the court charged the jury:
Counsel contends that in so charging the court took from the jury the questions whether certain essential elements of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. England
...to set forth.15 Aside from the Jonikas case, and for the same proposition, the Government has referred the court to Malone v. United States, 238 F.2d 851 (6th Cir. 1956), and Lyons v. United States, 325 F.2d 370 (9th Cir. 1963). And, as has been indicated, there are other cases to the same ......
-
Brown v. United States
...v. United States, 6 Cir., 237 F.2d 640), such an instruction was also disapproved, and in the second of which (Malone v. United States, 6 Cir., 238 F.2d 851), such an instruction was 3 I do not include in this list cases such as Dixon v. United States, 8 Cir., 295 F.2d 396, where the eviden......
-
United States v. Zarra, Crim. No. 14225.
...instruction, such as the one given here, which assumes an admitted or uncontroverted fact, is not reversible error. Malone v. United States, 238 F.2d 851 (6th Cir. 1956). United States v. Jonikas, 197 F.2d 675 (7th Cir. 1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 877, 73 S.Ct. 171, 97 L.Ed. 679. Nordgren ......
-
United States ex rel. Johnson v. Hatrak
...States v. Bard, 408 F.2d 347 (6th Cir. 1969). Cf. United States v. Pravato, 505 F.2d 703, 704-705 (2nd Cir. 1974); Malone v. United States, 238 F.2d 851 (6th Cir. 1956). The object of a trial is to resolve contested issues of fact by the legal fact-finding process. While it is the exclusive......