United States v. Howard
Decision Date | 01 May 1964 |
Docket Number | Crim. No. 0490. |
Citation | 228 F. Supp. 939 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Milton HOWARD, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
Theodore L. Richling, U. S. Atty., Dist. of Nebraska, Omaha, Neb., for plaintiff.
Robert C. Guenzel, Lincoln, Neb., for defendant.
This matter was before the court on April 10, 1964 upon defendant's Motion for Judgment or Acquittal Notwithstanding the Verdict And, In The Alternative, For a New Trial. The points argued had been briefed and argued at the trial and following argument on the motion the court announced orally its rulings stating that this memorandum would be filed.
Defendant was indicted on two counts on February 24, 1960 by reason of a claimed narcotics transaction in Omaha, Nebraska, of November 19, 1959 with Edward Floyd Ellis. He was arrested on a complaint filed December 23, 1959 and released on bond for a hearing December 28, 1959. This hearing because of Ellis' death, was successively continued to December 30th and to December 31, 1959.
Thereafter, defendant was prosecuted for and convicted of first degree murder of Ellis and sentenced to life imprisonment.1 The conviction was affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court on June 29, 1962. See Howard v. State, 174 Neb. 90, 116 N.W.2d 7, for many details not related here. In that opinion the court stated:
The actual shooting was done either by Donald Williams or Jerry Erving.2
The Supreme Court further stated:
(174 Neb. at 93, 116 N.W.2d at 11.)
In December, 1963 defendant who then and for a period prior had been confined to the Nebraska State Penitentiary, wrote the court demanding a speedy trial. Chief Judge Robinson transferred the case from Omaha to Lincoln and the writer on January 22, 1964 appointed counsel for the defendant, an indigent, and set the case for trial to the March, 1964 jury. Court-appointed counsel, unknown at the time to the court, had that week entered the Veterans' Administration Hospital in Lincoln. Upon a showing to the court that counsel would not be physically able to try the case in March, the court on February 20, 1964 withdrew the previous appointment and appointed Robert C. Guenzel of Lincoln and David A. Svoboda of Omaha as counsel and assigned the case for trial for March 30, 1964. At the request of defendant's counsel the trial date was advanced to March 23. The case came on for trial and the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts.
Both prior to arraignment and prior to empaneling of a jury defendant's counsel moved for dismissal, claiming that defendant had not been afforded the speedy trial guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. These motions were overruled.
It has been held in this circuit that a period of four years between indictment and trial would not require dismissal. See Nolan v. United States, 8 Cir., 163 F.2d 768, cert. den. 333 U.S. 846, 68 S.Ct. 649, 92 L.Ed. 1130.
The Court of Appeals for this circuit has held also that the defendant must demand a trial before he can complain of violation of his constitutional rights to a speedy trial. Phillips v. United States, 8 Cir., 201 F. 259; Davidson v. United States, 8 Cir., 312 F.2d 163. Under this rule the defendant certainly has not been denied a speedy trial.
The authorities rather generally agree that the trial court has wide discretion in such a matter. The decisions further give importance to the fact that an accused is in custody of state authorities, if such is the case. The court concluded, and abides by that conclusion, that under the facts here presented the motion should be denied. The recent opinion by the Court of Appeals of this circuit in Bistram v. People, 1964, 330 F.2d 450, although not specifically in point, supports the conclusion here reached.
At the trial there arose an unusual evidence question and an exception was then noted to the court's ruling and the claimed error again urged in the motions heard April 10th.
It can be stated — Was the Government, as a part of its case in chief, entitled to prove that the defendant killed or procured the killing (In Nebraska an aider and abetter can be charged as a principal) of the informer named as the narcotics purchaser in the indictment on which defendant was being tried?
The court permitted evidence to be received of the complaint filed against defendant in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska and of the judgment including the verdict of guilty returned by the jury and the sentence. Testimony identifying Edward Floyd Ellis, named in the indictment, and Edward Ellis named in the murder complaint, was received as well as testimony showing that Howard had on December 24th learned the name of the informer. This was later corroborated by the witness Williams who was called on behalf of defendant.
The court told the jury when the evidence was received that Howard was not on trial here for the murder of Ellis; that this testimony was being received for the limited purpose only of indicating an act inconsistent with the presumption of innocence. In the charge the jury was again told:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rechtschaffer
...witnesses away from criminal trial,' 62 A.L.R. 136 (1929). Examples of admissibility may be found in the following: United States v. Howard, 228 F.Supp. 939, 942 (D.Neb.1964) (defendant's act of procuring the murder of or murdering the chief witness against him); People v. Jaquette, 253 Cal......
-
State v. Burnette
...rule that evidence of other crimes is not admissible. 1 See, United States v. Cirillo, 468 F.2d 1233 (2d Cir. 1972); United States v. Howard, 228 F.Supp. 939 (D.Neb.1964); State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 1, 503 P.2d 949 State v. Hill, 47 N.J. 490, 221 A.2d 725 (1966); State v. Johnson, 394 S......
-
Cummings v. United States
...facts is evidence of guilt. Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee, 327 U.S. 274, 66 S.Ct. 544, 90 L.Ed. 667 (1946). Accord, United States v. Howard, 228 F.Supp. 939 (Neb. 1964). The defendant argues that his withdrawal of funds and his attempt to persuade the bank not to investigate the circumstan......
-
State v. Nelson
...72 Neb. 501, 101 N.W. 17; Woodruff v. State, 72 Neb. 815, 101 N.W. 1114; Welter v. State, 112 Neb. 22, 198 N.W. 171; United States v. Howard, D.C., 228 F.Supp. 939; 22 A C.J.S. Criminal Law, § 633, p. 483; Annotation, 62 A.L.R. It is contended that the court was in error in refusing to give......