United States v. Wells, 20332.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 20332.,20332. |
| Citation | 437 F.2d 1144 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Edward WELLS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Bernard Burlingame, Parma Heights, Ohio, Court appointed, for defendant-appellant.
Jack B. Streepy, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee; Robert B. Krupansky, U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, on brief.
Before McCREE, Circuit Judge, and MURRAH* and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judges.
This is a direct appeal, from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, by George Edward Wells from a judgment of conviction on two counts of an indictment charging in count one transportation of stolen coins of the value of $5,000 or more from Middleburgh Heights, Ohio to Springfield, Illinois, knowing them to have been stolen, and in count two the sale and disposition of the same coins.
The principal assignment of error is that the trial judge erred in allowing the prosecution to confront the appellant's character witnesses on cross examination with current indictments in both Federal and State Courts.
Four character witnesses were called on behalf of the appellant. Two knew him while he was confined in the penitentiary. One could not answer the critical question that he had the means of knowing his reputation. The other had read in the paper that the appellant had been arrested. On this basis he changed his opinion that he had a good reputation. There was no objection to the statement that he had been arrested.
A third witness, Robert Turner, knew him where he worked in the State Department of Public Works. He was asked on cross-examination if he knew that the appellant had been arrested and indicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida for violating the Interstate Transportation of Forged Securities. He was also asked if he knew that the appellant had been arrested and indicted by the Grand Jury of Cuyahoga County, Ohio for armed robbery that occurred on the 21st of October, 1967. No objection was made in the record by defense counsel. The witness testified that the knowledge of these arrests and indictments would not change his opinion that the appellant had a good reputation in the community for peace and quiet.
A fourth character witness, David B. Jones, was superintendent of the State Department of Public Works where the appellant worked and knew him in that capacity. Mr. Jones did not have the means of knowing the reputation of the appellant between 1967 and the present date.
The questions to which objection is now made were not objected to at trial and we do not think that in the light of all the character evidence they were prejudicial. We conclude that the questions were permissible under Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168, where the subject is thoroughly discussed. At p. 482, 69 S.Ct. at p. 221 the Court said, "A character witness may be cross-examined as to an arrest whether or not it culminated in a conviction, according to the overwhelming weight of authority." See also Shimon v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 352 F.2d 449, 453.
Another question raised by the appellant is that the trial court erred in not sustaining a motion to suppress evidence of a coin collection found in the home of Roy Constiner on the ground of an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The appellant was not present at the time of the search and the coins were not seized in premises where the appellant had any interest or right of control. He therefore had no standing to object to the search. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 171, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176.
The appellant further objects to an alleged violation of the application of the exclusionary rule of witnesses. At the beginning of the trial counsel for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
County Collector of County of Winnebago, Ill., Application of
... ... Maher, et al ... Nos. 96-1709, 96-1710 and 96-1716 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Seventh Circuit ... Argued June 7, 1996 ... ...
-
U.S. v. Williams
...Pellegrino, 470 F.2d 1205, 1208 (2d Cir. 1972), Cert. denied, 411 U.S. 918, 93 S.Ct. 1556, 36 L.Ed.2d 310 (1973); United States v. Wells, 437 F.2d 1144, 1146 (6th Cir. 1971). In the absence of any specific showing of prejudice to appellant Ervin from the action of the trial court, we find n......
-
U.S. v. Dye
...in the property or the right to control it, they have no standing to suppress the evidence taken from the truck. United States v. Wells, 437 F.2d 1144 (6th Cir. 1971). The defendants cite Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1968) for the proposition that one ne......
-
State v. Alexander, 2004 Ohio 6990 (OH 12/17/2004)
...even though that person also testifies as a witness. United States v. Martin(6th Cir. 1990), 920 F.3d 393; United States v. Wells(6th Cir. 1971), 437 F.2d 1144, 1146; Schoppel v. United States(4th Cir. 1959), 270 F.2d 413, 416-417; Powell v. United States, supra; State v. Remy, 4th Dist No.......