Miciotto v. United States, 11290
| Decision Date | 26 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 11290,11291.,11290 |
| Citation | 91 US App. DC 102,198 F.2d 951 |
| Parties | MICIOTTO v. UNITED STATES. SIMCIC v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Harry M. Rubin, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Nicholas J. Chase, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for Alexander R. Miciotto.
Mr. William E. Kirk, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., and Joseph M. Howard and Emory W. Reisinger, II, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
Each of the two appellants was convicted of statutory negligent homicide1 after a joint trial in the Municipal Court. The appellants were charged in an information containing one count, the pertinent terms of which are set forth in the margin.2 The Municipal Court of Appeals affirmed, 1952, 86 A.2d 98, and we allowed these appeals, consolidated for presentation in this court.
A bus driven by appellant Simcic and a car driven by appellant Miciotto collided. As a consequence of the collision a car driven by Heston Simon was struck by one or both of the vehicles driven by the appellants, and he was killed.
The questions are (1) whether Rule 7(b) of the Rules of the Municipal Court, Criminal Division,3 authorized joinder in the circumstances stated; (2) whether, if so, the Rule is valid, and (3) whether it was an abuse of discretion to deny severance of trial.4
For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Municipal Court of Appeals, supra, we agree that the joinder was authorized by the Rule, that the Rule as so applied is valid, and that it was not an abuse of discretion to refuse separate trials. We accordingly affirm.
Affirmed.
1 The pertinent provision of the Code reads:
"Any person who, by the operation of any vehicle at an immoderate rate of speed or in a careless, reckless, or negligent manner, but not wilfully or wantonly, shall cause the death of another, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than $1,000 or both." § 40-606, D.C.Code (1940).
2 "* * * that one Alexander R. Miciotto and Joseph M. Simic sic late of the District aforesaid, on the 20th day of June in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and 50 with force and arms, at the District aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, did then and there operate a certain motor vehicle, to wit: an automobile and bus at an immoderate rate of speed and in such a reckless, careless and negligent manner as to cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
... ... defendants "present defenses that are antagonistic at their core." United States v. Berkowitz, 662 F.2d 1127, 1134 (5th Cir.1981). The mere ... Miciotto v ... Page 607 ... United States, 198 F.2d 951 (D.C.Cir.1952); ... ...
-
Dillard v. Yeldell
...831 (1973); Wright v. Mathias, D.C.Mun.App., 128 A.2d 658 (1957); Simcic v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 86 A.2d 98, aff'd, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 198 F.2d 951 (1952). Having reached this general conclusion as to cost authority, we are left with the question whether it applies to extraordinar......
-
Roy v. US, No. 02-CF-290, 02-CF-306.
...if tried separately is not sufficient for a grant of severance. Simcic v. United States, 86 A.2d 98, 102 (D.C.), aff'd, 91 U.S.App. D.C. 102, 198 F.2d 951 (1952). Policy concerns have long favored joint trials. Thus, the more rigorous requirement of manifest prejudice must be established. D......
-
Robinson v. United States, 11681.
...to a severance. Simcic v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 86 A.2d 98, 102; affirmed and opinion adopted, sub nom. Miciotto v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 198 F.2d 951. Appellant contends that trial jointly with Ward was prejudicial because it led to the admission of three government ex......