United States v. Miller

• Decision Date: 22 December 1971
• Docket Number: No. 71-1401,71-1409.,71-1401
• Citation: United States v. Miller, 451 F.2d 1306 (4th Cir. 1971)
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Henry MILLER, Appellant (Two Cases).
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

451 F.2d 1306 (1971)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Henry MILLER, Appellant (Two Cases).

Nos. 71-1401, 71-1409.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued November 5, 1971.

Decided December 22, 1971.

Andrew W. Wood, Richmond, Va. (court-appointed counsel) Bremner, Byrne & Baber, Richmond, Va., on brief, for appellant.

Rodney Sager, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER and FIELD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

These are two appeals by James Henry Miller from judgments of conviction entered against him pursuant to a jury verdict of guilty in each case. In No. 71-1401 Miller was charged in a five count indictment with offenses involving United States postal money orders, the first count charging a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, and the remaining counts charging substantive violations of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Miller was convicted on the first four counts and the fifth count was dismissed on motion of the Government. In No. 71-1409 Miller was convicted of bail jumping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3150.

Upon the appeal in No. 71-1401 the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the Government's evidence, a substantial part of which was the testimony of two witnesses who were named as codefendants with Miller in the conspiracy count of the subject indictment. It is the suspect nature of this testimony which Miller places in question upon this appeal. While, of course, the testimony of an accomplice should be examined with care and received cautiously, nevertheless, such testimony may be sufficient to sustain a conviction, even though not corroborated if it convinces the jury of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Maddox, 394 F.2d 297 (4 Cir. 1968). The record in this case shows that the District Judge gave the jury the appropriate cautionary charge relative to this testimony and, additionally, there was ample evidence to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty on each count. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction in No. 71-1401 is affirmed.

In No. 71-1409, the bail jumping case, Miller takes the position that the District Court erred in refusing to grant a request for a continuance to give him an opportunity to subpoena two witnesses in his defense. In a colloquy between the Court and the defendant, Miller stated that the two witnesses would testify with respect to threats made upon his life by certain persons, and it was Miller's position that he failed to appear for trial in response to the conditions of his bail because of his fear of bodily harm or death by reason of such...