United States v. Carter
Decision Date | 05 March 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 19148-19150.,19148-19150. |
Citation | 422 F.2d 519 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Michael CARTER, Jr., Leonard Damron and Norman Louis Roberts, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Irving Tukel (Court Appointed), Detroit, Mich., for Eddie Michael Carter, Jr.
Arthur J. Tarnow (Court Appointed), Detroit, Mich., Carl Levin, Detroit, Mich., Defenders' Office Legal Aid and Defender Ass'n of Detroit, on brief, for Leonard Damron.
D. Michael Kratchman (Court Appointed), Detroit, Mich., for Norman Louis Roberts.
Henry J. Maher, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., James H. Brickley, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on brief, for appellee.
Before CELEBREZZE and COMBS, Circuit Judges, and O'SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
O'SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Eddie Michael Carter, Jr., Leonard Damron and Norman Louis Roberts appeal from judgments entered upon a jury's verdict finding them all guilty of armed robbery of a branch of the City National Bank of Detroit. The branch in question was robbed at about 2:45 in the afternoon of February 23, 1967, by three armed men. They obtained approximately $20,000. The robbery was a bold affair with no attempt by the desperados to hide their identity or their armed activity. All were identified by several of the employees of the bank, and the record contains nothing of importance to impair the credibility of these witnesses. The evidence of the guilt of each was so clear that if there were any merit to the trial errors asserted, we would hold all of them harmless within the meaning of Rule 52(a) Fed.R.Crim.P. If Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed. 2d 705, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065, is applicable to this federal conviction, it is our belief that the errors charged were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
We discuss the assignments of error as follows:
1. Evidence that the bank was insured by the FDIC.
Government's Exhibit 1 was identified by an assistant cashier of the bank as being the "certificate of insurance issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation covering our bank deposits." No objection was made to the giving of that answer to the question which elicited it. On its being offered in evidence, objection was made that proper foundation was not laid for its admission. Prior to offering Exhibit 1, the same witness, in answer to a pertinent question, said:
No objections were voiced to the questions which produced the quoted answers, nor was there a motion to strike the answers. Exhibit One was properly admitted. It was identified as the original certificate furnished to the bank by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Unaided by this certificate, the fact that the robbed bank was insured by FDIC was clearly shown.
2. The instructions.
None of the accused took the stand. Without request therefor, the District Judge instructed the jury:
Such also is the rule of Hanks v. United States, 388 F.2d 171, 175 (10th Cir. 1968) and United States v. Garguilo, 310 F.2d 249, 252 (2nd Cir. 1962)....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stapleton v. State
...e.g., Mengarelli v. U.S. Marshal, 476 F.2d 617 (9th Cir. 1973); Sullivan v. Scafati, 428 F.2d 1023 (1st Cir. 1970); United States v. Carter, 422 F.2d 519 (6th Cir. 1970); United States v. Cook, 419 F.2d 1306 (5th Cir 1969); United States v. Wick, 416 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1969); Caton v. United......
-
U.S. v. Williams
...judge to read such an instruction to the jury where the judge includes the instruction on his own initiative, United States v. Carter, 422 F.2d 519, 520-21 (6th Cir. 1970); United States v. Schwartz, 398 F.2d 464, 469-70 (7th Cir. 1968), Cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1062, 89 S.Ct. 714, 21 L.Ed.2d......
-
U.S. v. Couch
...certificate properly identified by a bank auditor was sufficient to prove the bank's FDIC-insured status); see also United States v. Carter, 422 F.2d 519, 520 (6th Cir.1970) (allowing FDIC-insured status to be proven by the testimony of an assistant cashier that the bank was a member of the......
-
Hill v. State
...United States (5th Cir. 1966), 356 F.2d 437, 439, cert. denied (1966), 385 U.S. 856, 87 S.Ct. 103, 17 L.Ed.2d 83; United States v. Carter (6th Cir. 1970), 422 F.2d 519, 521; United States v. Schwartz (7th Cir. 1968), 398 F.2d 464, 469-70, cert. denied (1969), 393 U.S. 1062, 89 S.Ct. 714, 21......