United States v. Hoyt, 71-2516 Summary Calendar.

Decision Date29 November 1971
Docket NumberNo. 71-2516 Summary Calendar.,71-2516 Summary Calendar.
Citation451 F.2d 570
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herbert Edward HOYT, Jr., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Arthur Cobb, Baton Rouge, La., court appointed for Hoyt.

Richard E. Burton, Baton Rouge, La., court appointed for Bowman.

Jerry H. Smith, Baton Rouge, La., court appointed for Matthews.

Gerald P. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., Clay J. Calhoun, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WISDOM, COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Herbert Edward Hoyt, Jr., James Lee Bowman, and Homer Ray Matthews were jointly charged in a one-count indictment with a violation of the federal interstate kidnaping statute, Section 1201(a), Title 18, U.S.Code.1 Following a joint jury trial, all three defendants were found guilty as charged and were sentenced to the custody of the Attorney-General for twenty (20) year terms. We have carefully reviewed the record of the proceedings below and have found no merit in the appellate contentions urged upon us. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of conviction as to all three defendants.

Only one assignment of error merits extended discussion. The appellants argue that the district court committed reversible error in treating the case as noncapital, thereby depriving the defendants of the right to exercise twenty (20) peremptory challenges to the venire and the right to be furnished three days in advance of trial with the names and addresses of the members of the venire and the prosecution's witnesses. Rule 24(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; Title 18, U.S.C., Section 3432. The government asserts that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Jackson, 1968, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138, gave the trial court no option but to treat the case as non-capital. We agree with the government in this regard. The Jackson holding invalidated Section 1201(a)'s death penalty feature as violative of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Court found nevertheless that the death penalty provision was severable from the definition of kidnaping found in Section 1201(a). Judicial surgery having excised the death penalty from the statute's discussion of the offense of interstate kidnaping, the lower court's treatment of the case as non-capital for all purposes was correct.

In addition to asserting that the lower court erroneously treated the case as non-capital, the appellants have raised numerous additional points on appeal in seeking reversal of their convictions. Review of the record fails to demonstrate merit in any of these contentions. Beyond listing them in the margin2 for possible future reference, we pretermit further discussion of these claimed grounds of error.

The appellants received fair trials below. The judgments of conviction are each

Affirmed.

1 Section 1201(a), Title 18, U.S. Code, reads:

"Whoever knowingly transports in interstate or foreign commerce, any person who has been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnaped, abducted, or carried away and held for ransom or reward or otherwise, except, in the case of a minor, by a parent thereof, shall be punished (1) by death if the kidnaped person...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • United States v. Provenzano, 76 Cr. 580.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 29 Octubre 1976
    ...when an accused was faced with a "capital" crime. See United States v. Massingale, 500 F.2d 1224 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Hoyt, 451 F.2d 570 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. den., 405 U.S. 995, 92 S.Ct. 1272, 31 L.Ed.2d 465 (1972); Reed v. United States, 432 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. d......
  • U.S. v. Grimes
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 8 Junio 1998
    ...States v. Kaiser, 545 F.2d 467, 475 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Crowell, 498 F.2d 324, 325 (5th Cir.1974); United States v. Hoyt, 451 F.2d 570, 571 (5th Cir.1971); United States v. Goseyun, 789 F.2d 1386, 1387 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Shepherd, 576 F.2d 719, 727-29 (7th Cir.197......
  • U.S. v. Edelin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 23 Enero 2001
    ...States v. Kaiser, 545 F.2d 467, 475 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Crowell, 498 F.2d 324, 325 (5th Cir.1974); United States v. Hoyt, 451 F.2d 570, 571 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 995, 92 S.Ct. 1272, 31 L.Ed.2d 465 (1972); Reed v. United States, 432 F.2d 205, 206-08 (9th Cir.197......
  • United States v. Edelin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 16 Septiembre 2003
    ...States v. Kaiser, 545 F.2d 467, 475 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Cromwell, 498 F.2d 324, 325 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Hoyt, 451 F.2d 570, 571 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 995 (1972); United States v. Reed, 432 F.2d 205, 206-08 (9th Cir. 1970); Hall v. United States,......
  • 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