United States v. Conti, No. 15746.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtMILLER, O'SULLIVAN and EDWARDS, Circuit
Citation339 F.2d 10
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred Michael CONTI, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 15746.
Decision Date11 December 1964

339 F.2d 10 (1964)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Fred Michael CONTI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15746.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

December 11, 1964.


339 F.2d 11

Adrian B. Fink, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

Bernard J. Stuplinski, Chief Asst. U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, Merle M. McCurdy, U. S. Atty., Elmer A. Giuliani, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, Charles E. Cook, Legal Asst. to U. S. Atty., on brief, for appellee.

Before MILLER, O'SULLIVAN and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.

SHACKELFORD MILLER, Jr., Circuit Judge.

The defendant, Fred Michael Conti, was indicted for entering the Oakwood Branch of the City Bank Company, Lorain, Ohio, with intent to commit a felony or larceny, in violation of Section 2113(a), Title 18, United States Code. He entered a plea of not guilty, waived trial by jury, and the case was tried to the court without a jury. The District Judge found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of 9 years and 5 months, from which judgment this appeal was taken.

The Government introduced evidence showing that at approximately 1:40 A.M. on May 3, 1963, the burglar alarm of the Oakwood Branch of the City Bank Company at Lorain, Ohio, went off and was answered by the police of the City of Lorain. Investigation by the police upon arriving at the bank showed that there was a hole in the roof and that a vent, which had been covering this hole, had been pushed aside. Lying on the roof near the hole were a long coil of rope, two tin snips, one wrecking bar, a sledge hammer, and a wedge. The windows and the doors of the bank were intact. Nobody was found on the roof. When the manager of the bank arrived police officers went with him inside the building but no one was found there. They observed that the crossbar that was used to hold the north door closed was on the floor, along with a wrecking bar. In the boiler room, which was right off the bank proper, there was a ladder under the hole in the roof and the lead-in pipe from the intake ventilator was pushed to the side.

Leonard Rosenberg, a hardware dealer in the defendant's neighborhood, testified that on May 2, 1963, about the middle of the afternoon, the defendant purchased from him at his store 41 feet by ¾ rope, a sledge hammer, two wedges, two wrecking bars and a pair of gloves. The defendant did not ask the price of any of the articles purchased, but said that he would pay for them later. The defendant's father sent the money in the amount of $32.58 to the witness by another man approximately a month and a half before the trial. The sledge hammer, wedge, and the two wrecking bars, found on the roof and in the bank were identified by a code number that the witness had placed upon them when they were placed in stock as being among the articles sold to the defendant on May 2. He testified that the rope found on the roof of the bank was ¾ inch rope and looked like the kind of rope he had sold to the defendant. The witness also testified that about noon on May 3, 1963, the defendant came to the store and told him that he had lost the articles he had purchased and that if anybody came in and asked him about it, he was to tell them that he didn't know anything about it. Shortly thereafter, at about 1 or 1:15 P.M. that day, two F.B.I. agents arrived at Mr. Rosenberg's hardware store and talked with him. Mr. Rosenberg showed them a coil of rope in the rear of his store, from which he had sold 41 feet to the defendant the day before, and gave them a piece about six or eight inches long, which he cut off of it. This was sent, together with the rope found on the roof of the bank, to the F.B.I. laboratory in Washington, D. C. An F.B.I. agent, who was an expert in the examination and comparison of hairs, fibers, fabrics, and related materials,

339 F.2d 12
such as ropes, and who examined the two pieces of rope by microscope, in addition to the unaided eye, testified that the two pieces of rope were originally one continuous piece. The witness testified that he had not sold any of the rope to any other customer after the sale to the defendant

Shortly thereafter the F.B.I. agents questioned the defendant at his home. Upon asking him where he was the previous night, he stated that he was home all of that night and added that he was home every night.

At the trial the defendant did not testify. Four witnesses testified for him with respect to an alibi. A cousin testified that he met the defendant between 6:30 and 7 P.M. on May 2 and a little later he drove him to the home of defendant's brother-in-law, where he dropped him off in the neighborhood of 7:30 P.M. or 20 minutes to 8. The brother-in-law testified that the defendant arrived at his house at approximately 7:30 stayed there until after 12:30, at which time he drove the defendant home, arriving there at about 20 or 25 minutes after 1:00 A.M. on the morning of May 3. Defendant lived on Wayside Road in Cleveland. The brother-in-law's wife, who was the sister of the defendant's former wife, testified that the defendant came to their home at 844 East 207th Street, Euclid, Ohio, at about 7:30 or 8 P.M. on May 2 and that it was approximately 12:45 A.M. when her husband left to drive him home. The defendant's former wife testified that she joined the others at the home of her brother-in-law at about 10:40 or 10:45 P.M. on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 practice notes
  • Geesa v. State, No. 290-90
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 6 Noviembre 1991
    ...602 F.2d 1054 (2nd Cir.1979); U.S. v. Hamilton, 457 F.2d 95 (3rd Cir.1972); U.S. v. Chappell, 353 F.2d 83 (4th Cir.1965); U.S. v. Conti, 339 F.2d 10 (6th Cir.1964); U.S. v. Wigoda, 521 F.2d 1221 (7th Cir.1975); U.S. v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346 (8th Cir.1976); U.S. v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237 (9t......
  • State v. Jenks, No. 90-910
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 31 Julio 1991
    ...v. Chappell (C.A.4, 1965), 353 F.2d 83, 84; United States v. Bell (C.A.5, 1982), 678 F.2d 547, 549; United States v. Conti (C.A.6, 1964), 339 F.2d 10, 12-13; United States v. Wigoda (C.A.7, 1975), 521 F.2d 1221, 1225; United States v. Carlson (C.A.8, 1976), 547 F.2d 1346, 1360; United State......
  • United States v. Gibson, No. CR-1-79-23-1.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • 14 Marzo 1980
    ...439 U.S. 870, 99 S.Ct. 201, 58 L.Ed.2d 182 (1978); United States v. Bradley, 421 F.2d 924, 926 (6th Cir. 1970); United States v. Conti, 339 F.2d 10, 12-13 (6th Cir. 1964); Wright, supra, at After thorough consideration, the Court concludes that judgment of acquittal must be entered both on ......
  • State Of Tenn. v. James
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • 24 Junio 2010
    ...provided a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."); United States v. Conti. 339 F.2d 10, 12-13 (6th Cir. 1964) ("[I]t is not necessary that circumstantial evidence be such as would remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
63 cases
  • Geesa v. State, No. 290-90
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 6 Noviembre 1991
    ...602 F.2d 1054 (2nd Cir.1979); U.S. v. Hamilton, 457 F.2d 95 (3rd Cir.1972); U.S. v. Chappell, 353 F.2d 83 (4th Cir.1965); U.S. v. Conti, 339 F.2d 10 (6th Cir.1964); U.S. v. Wigoda, 521 F.2d 1221 (7th Cir.1975); U.S. v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346 (8th Cir.1976); U.S. v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237 (9t......
  • State v. Jenks, No. 90-910
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 31 Julio 1991
    ...v. Chappell (C.A.4, 1965), 353 F.2d 83, 84; United States v. Bell (C.A.5, 1982), 678 F.2d 547, 549; United States v. Conti (C.A.6, 1964), 339 F.2d 10, 12-13; United States v. Wigoda (C.A.7, 1975), 521 F.2d 1221, 1225; United States v. Carlson (C.A.8, 1976), 547 F.2d 1346, 1360; United State......
  • United States v. Gibson, No. CR-1-79-23-1.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • 14 Marzo 1980
    ...439 U.S. 870, 99 S.Ct. 201, 58 L.Ed.2d 182 (1978); United States v. Bradley, 421 F.2d 924, 926 (6th Cir. 1970); United States v. Conti, 339 F.2d 10, 12-13 (6th Cir. 1964); Wright, supra, at After thorough consideration, the Court concludes that judgment of acquittal must be entered both on ......
  • State Of Tenn. v. James
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • 24 Junio 2010
    ...provided a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."); United States v. Conti. 339 F.2d 10, 12-13 (6th Cir. 1964) ("[I]t is not necessary that circumstantial evidence be such as would remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of......
  • 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