Ward v. United States
| Decision Date | 04 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 15744.,15744. |
| Citation | 289 F.2d 877,110 US App. DC 136 |
| Parties | Richard H. WARD, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Lucien Hilmer, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.
Mr. Abbott A. Leban, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee. Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., at the time of argument, Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Maurice R. Dunie, Asst. U. S. Atty., at the time the brief was filed, were on the brief for appellee.
Before WASHINGTON, DANAHER and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was indicted, tried and found guilty on six counts for narcotics violations. He was tried with a co-defendant, Curtis Lyons, who was indicted jointly with appellant in counts 4, 5 and 6 for a narcotics sale on September 1, 1959. Lyons was not charged under counts 1, 2 and 3 which charged appellant alone for a narcotics sale on July 31, 1959. However, Lyons was indicted for a narcotics offense on December 11, 1959, which was the subject of count 7. The December 11 sale under count 7 was charged only to Lyons and was unrelated to the July 31 transaction.
Thus counts 1, 2 and 3 of the indictment charged appellant alone. Counts 4, 5 and 6 charged Lyons and appellant together in common transactions and count 7 charged Lyons alone.1 The indictment did not allege that the transactions were connected or that they were pursuant to a conspiracy. Appellant's timely motion for severance, claiming prejudicial misjoinder, was denied.
Lyons was found not guilty as to count 7 and guilty on counts 4, 5 and 6. Appellant, as we have noted, was found guilty on counts 1 through 6 inclusive.
Rule 8(b) of the Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A. provides that "two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment * * * if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction * * *." Thus joinder under counts 4, 5 and 6 was proper as to both Ward and Lyons, for they were alleged to have participated jointly in the September 1 transaction. But the indictment did not allege that the 7th count, against Lyons, was in any way related to the counts linking the two defendants.
The government contends that Lyons' acquittal on count 7 demonstrates that Ward did not suffer prejudice by the joinder. But "where multiple defendants are charged with offenses in no way connected, and are tried together, they are prejudiced by that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lane Lane v. United States
...it was read to support, not the majority's conclusion, but the viability of the McElroy rule. See Ward v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 130, 137, 289 F.2d 877, 878 (1961) (Burger, J.) (citing Schaffer and McElroy to reject Government suggestion that defendant must show prejudice to obtain......
-
United States v. Roselli
...Cir. 1966); United States v. Granello, supra; Cupo v. United States, supra; King v. United States, supra; Ward v. United States, 110 U.S. App.D.C. 136, 289 F.2d 877, 878 (1961); Ingram v. United States, 272 F.2d 567, 569, 570 (4th Cir. 1959); see McElroy v. United States, 164 U.S. 76, 80-81......
-
United States v. Haim
...all of the defendants `have participated.'" Williamson v. United States, 310 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir., 1962); see Ward v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 136, 289 F.2d 877 (1961); Ingram v. United States, 272 F.2d 567 (4th Cir., 1959); United States v. Welsh, 15 F.R.D. 189 (D.C.Cir. All of t......
-
Baker v. United States
...369 F.2d 185, 189 (1966) (dictum). But cf. Cupo v. United States, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 359 F.2d 990 (1966); Ward v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 136, 289 F.2d 877 (1961). 55 But see United States v. Quinn, supra note 56 Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 85, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.......