U.S. v. Crow Dog, 75-1934

Decision Date17 June 1976
Docket NumberNo. 75-1934,75-1934
Citation537 F.2d 308
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Leonard E. CROW DOG, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

William M. Kunstler, c/o Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, and Daniel T. Taylor, III, Louisville, Ky., on brief for appellant.

William F. Clayton, U.S. Atty., R. D. Hurd and David R. Gienapp, Asst. U.S. Attys., Sioux Falls, S.D., on brief for appellee.

Before HEANEY, ROSS and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Crow Dog, a Brule Sioux, appeals from his conviction after a jury trial on two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon which allegedly occurred on the Rosebud Indian Reservation. 18 U.S.C. § 1153; S.D. Compiled Laws Ann. § 22-18-11. Crow Dog alleges that the trial judge's 1 denial of a reasonable continuance denied him due process of law and effective assistance of counsel, and that improper criteria were considered in sentencing. We affirm the conviction.

On November 17, 1975, the date which had been set for trial, the accused retained new lead trial counsel from Louisville, Kentucky, who appeared and requested a five day continuance. This was originally granted, but the judge later reduced the continuance to three days because the accused was also represented by local counsel who had been appointed to the case since September 9, 1975: six days after the alleged crime. On appeal Crow Dog's current counsel argue for the first time that local trial counsel was biased, reluctant to defend the accused and merely went through the motions. This is not borne out by the record. Local counsel made pretrial motions and represented Crow Dog at a suppression hearing before he retained other counsel, and presented a substantial part of the case at trial. His defense of Crow Dog can only be described as able and vigorous.

It is also alleged that an additional two days' continuance would have enabled lead counsel to discover facts about prosecution witnesses which would have allowed effective impeachment. Significantly, however, counsel has not actually pointed to any impeachment evidence which was available and which he did not discover before trial. In addition he has indicated that the government was cooperative in disclosing evidence. We are satisfied that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a continuance of three days instead of five. United States v. Bear Killer, 534 F.2d 1253 (8th Cir., 1976); United States v Webb, 533 F.2d 391 (8th Cir., 1976); United States v. Johnson, 526 F.2d 600, 601 (8th Cir., 1975).

Crow Dog also challenges his sentence of five years' imprisonment on each count to run consecutively. The second term was suspended and the accused is to be placed on probation for ten years upon release from custody.

The record in this case reveals that the defendant and some...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • July 22, 1980
    ... ... concluded that the acquisition would be "a big step toward giving us a complete line of equipment." Additionally, Wagstaff reported to Pierson ... ...
  • U.S. v. Eagle
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 30, 1976
    ...is therefore without basis. Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424, 431, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974); United States v. Crow Dog, 537 F.2d 308 (8th Cir. 1976). For the reasons stated above, the conviction on Count II cannot stand. However, no basis for reversal on Count I has bee......
  • U.S. v. Camp, 75-1955
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • September 2, 1976
    ...issues have been raised, but six of them were examined and found to be without merit in a codefendant's appeal, United States v. Crow Dog, 537 F.2d 308 (8th Cir., 1976). Remaining are questions of sufficiency of the indictment and of the I. Sufficiency of the Indictment The statute under wh......
  • U.S. v. Powers
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 28, 1978
    ...makes not one specific allegation of "evidence which was available and which he did not discover before trial." United States v. Crow Dog, 537 F.2d 308, 309 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Turner, 551 F.2d 780, 782 (8th Cir. 1977). Powers' brief to this court in fact states that "(a)ppell......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT