United States v. Mojica, 883
| Decision Date | 19 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | Docket 35604.,No. 883,883 |
| Citation | 442 F.2d 920 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Nestor A. MOJICA, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Thomas G. Presutti, Rochester, N. Y., for appellant.
Michael R. Wolford, Asst. U. S. Atty. (H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr., U. S. Atty. for the Western District of New York, of counsel), for appellee.
Before WATERMAN, SMITH and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
Nestor A. Mojica appeals from conviction on four counts of attempted bank robbery (one count), assault in the course of attempted bank robbery (two counts) and carrying a firearm in the commission thereof (one count) on trial to the jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Harold P. Burke, Judge. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
This appeal and the companion case of Homer O. Baker, Jr. arise out of a single trial. Mojica was charged with four counts, involving attempted bank robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon. Baker was charged with three counts, aiding and abetting Mojica in his criminal activities. A gunman had attempted to rob a bank in Irondequoit, New York, and when the teller fled he shot her "in the posterior section." He fired another shot at the manager and left the bank, getting into a Ford Econoline van, which was driven by another individual. Mojica was accused of being the gunman, and Baker the driver. They were found guilty on all counts. Both defendants claim that the showing of photographs of them to the witnesses after they had been subpoenaed and when defense counsel were not present denied defendants a fair trial and the right to counsel. We have ruled, however, that absent some showing of real prejudice, the pre-trial showing of defendants' photographs to witnesses does not deny due process or the right to counsel. United States v. Bennett, 409 F.2d 888, 899 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied sub nom. Haywood v. United States, 396 U.S. 852, 90 S.Ct. 113, 24 L. Ed.2d 101 (1969); United States v. Baker, 419 F.2d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, De Norscio v. United States, 397 U.S. 971, 976, 90 S.Ct. 1086, 1096, 25 L.Ed.2d 265, 271 (1970). Here, defendants have failed to demonstrate the existence of anything more than speculative prejudice.
Mojica objects to the admission into evidence of certain items seized after a search of his place of abode, where he lived with his brother. At a suppression hearing, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Jones
...a house with whom a defendant lives may consent to the search of an area not specifically set aside for such occupant. United States v. Mojica, 442 F.2d 920 (2nd Cir.). See also United States v. Fentress, 452 F.2d 609 (9th Cir.). The motion to suppress the fruits of the warrantless search o......
-
United States v. Ash, 22340.
...denied, 400 U.S. 1021, 91 S.Ct. 583, 27 L.Ed. 2d 633 (1971); United States v. Fitzpatrick, 437 F.2d 19, 25 (1970); United States v. Mojica, 442 F.2d 920, 921 (1971); Fourth Circuit: United States v. Marson, 408 F.2d 644 (1968); United States v. Collins, 416 F.2d 696 (1969); United States v.......
-
Montgomery v. Fogg
...1067 (1976). 19 Petitioner has submitted only a portion of this report, and no date is reflected thereon. 20 See United States v. Mojica, 442 F.2d 920, 921 (2d Cir. 1971) (citing 21 Much briefer periods of observation have been deemed sufficient time within which a witness may form a lastin......
-
Holmes v. State
...is not determinative, United States v. Gambrill, supra, it is, nonetheless, entitled to some weight.12 See: United States v. Mojica (2nd Cir. 1971), 442 F.2d 920; United States v. Collins (4th Cir. 1969), 416 F.2d 696; United States v. Ballard, supra; United States v. Serio (6th Cir. 1971),......