United States v. Magnotti
| Decision Date | 24 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | 300 and 314,71-1199 and 71-1736.,Dockets 71-1030,299,No. 256,71-1095,256 |
| Citation | 454 F.2d 1140 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Richard MAGNOTTI, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Alfonse C. Fasano, New Haven, Conn. (Fasano & Fasano, New Haven, Conn., on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
B. Blair Crawford, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Stewart H. Jones, U. S. Atty., D. Conn.; Leslie Byelas, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SMITH, FEINBERG and MULLIGAN, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Richard Magnotti appeals from two separate convictions for bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (b) and (d), after trials in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and from the denial of his motion for a new trial as to the second conviction. On all three appeals, we affirm.1
In the first trial, the jury found defendant guilty of robbing a bank in Orange, Connecticut on February 11, 1970. Defendant claims that the charge of the trial judge (Robert C. Zampano, J.) provided inadequate guidance both on the question of defendant's mental capacity at the time of the crime, a central issue in the case, and on the problem of evaluating the testimony of expert witnesses who were called by both parties to testify on that issue. We have reviewed the charge and find nothing that would constitute plain error, the standard we must apply since there was no objection to the charge. Defendant also argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The claim is plainly without merit.
Defendant's second and third appeals concern his conviction after a jury trial before James L. Oakes, J.,2 for robbing a bank in Hamden, Connecticut on March 9, 1970. Appellant principally objects to the procedures followed by government agents when two eyewitnesses independently identified him from a photograph as one of the participants in the robbery. Briefly stated, the main issue presented is whether exhibiting to eyewitnesses seven "mug shots" of other persons along with a full-view photograph of the defendant is impermissibly suggestive and thus a denial of due process of law. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). We think not. The difference between Magnotti's photograph and the other mug shots would hardly suggest to an identifying witness that Magnotti was more likely to be the culprit; nor did the photograph single...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Clark
...out any distinguishing personal characteristics of defendant not possessed by the men in the other photographs." United States v. Magnotti, 454 F.2d 1140, 1142 (2d Cir.1972) (witness shown array of seven "mug shots" and "a full-view photograph of the defendant"). Thus the difference in the ......
-
State v. Hafner
...of the identifying witnesses, a fact generally viewed as cutting against a finding of suggestiveness. See, e.g., United States v. Magnotti, 454 F.2d 1140, 1142 (2d Cir.); cf. United States v. Bell, 457 F.2d 1231, 1235 (5th Cir.). In addition, the investigating police detective present durin......
-
Jones v. West
...it is clear that the photographic identification testimony alone could have supported the conviction.") (citing United States v. Magnotti, 454 F.2d 1140, 1142 (2d Cir.1972)). On rehearing, the Second Circuit clarified that it "wish[ed] to make it clear that in respect to that portion of [it......
-
U.S. v. Marchand
...influences on witnesses an objective impossibility. United States v. Bubar, 567 F.2d 192, ---- (2 Cir. 1977). See United States v. Magnotti, 454 F.2d 1140 (2 Cir. 1972) (full-view photograph of defendant in array with seven mug shots did not give rise to impermissible suggestion); United St......